UC-NRLF 


$B    52    MES 


/i 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

Universiiy  of  California. 

^IFT  OF 

Class 

[Papers  of  the  New  Haven  Colony  Historical  Society,  Vol.  III. J 
CHAPTERS   ON   THE 

EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT; 

WITH  CRITICAL  AND  EXPLANATORY  REMARKS  ON 

TIIK     CONSTITUTIOI^     OF     1639. 
By  Henry  Bronson,  M.D. 

[Read  March  3,  1879,  and  Feb.  23,  1880.] 


C'OI 


[Papers  of  the  New  Haven  Colony  Historical  Society,  Vol.  III.  J 


CHAPTERS   ON  THE 

EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT; 

WITH  critical  and  EXPLANATORY  REMARKS  ON 

THE     COJSrSTITUTION     OF     1639. 
By  Henry  Bronson,  M.D. 

[Read  March  3,  1879,  and  Feb.  23,  1880.] 


Chapter  I. 


The  first  planters  of  the  three  towns  on  the  Connecticut 
River,  Wethersfield,  Windsor,  and  Hartford,  came  from  Water- 
town,  Dorchester,  and  Newtown  (now  Cambridge),  near  Boston. 
They  were  distinct  ecclesiastical  bodies  before  they  started, 
each  proposing  a  settlement  of  its  own.  For  the  most  part, 
they  were  farmers  seeking  more  and  better  land  tlian  could  be 
obtained  at  the  Bay.  All  were  respectable,  and  among  them 
were  some  of  the  foremost'  men  of  New  England  and  the 
Puritan  faith,  distinguished  alike  for  wisdom,  learning,  purity, 
and  piety.  They  were  honest,  resolute,  zealous,  and  at  the 
same  time  prudent  and  sagacious — in  the  latter  qualities  sur- 
passed by  none.  The  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  was 
asked  to  sanction  their  design  to  remove.  A  majority  of  the 
magistrates  strenuously  opposed  ;  the  deputies  consented. 
Jealousies,  contention,  and  a  great  hubbub  ensued,  when  the 
Court,  according  to  custom  in  cases  of  perplexity,  "agreed 
to  keep  a  day  of  humiliation  to  seek  the  Lord,"  and  adjourned. 
The  day  was  observed  "in  all  the  congregations."  When  the 
members  again  assembled,  they  were  edified  by  a  set  sermon 


228387 


2  EAELY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

preached  by  the  famous  Mr.  Cotton,  of  Boston.  But  stead- 
fastness, in  those  times,  was  not  a  rare  quality,  and  the  pro- 
posed general  movement,  mostly  without  official  sanction,  was 
not  long  delayed.  After  it  had  begun,  the  General  Court,  in 
May,  1636,  with  the  acquiescence  of  John  Winthrop,  Jr., 
whom  the  patentees  in  England  had  appointed  governor  of 
Connecticut,  granted  a  commission  to  eight  discreet  persons 
to  govern  the  new  settlements  for  one  year.  Their  names  and 
the  names  of  the  towns  they  were  probably  expected,  in  some 
way,  to  represent,  were :  Roger  Ludlow  and  William  Phelps, 
of  Windsor,  John  Steele  and  William  Westwood,  of  Hartford, 
William  Swaine  and  Andrew^  Ward,  of  Wethersiield,  William 
Pynchon,  of  Agawam  (Springiield),  and  Henry  Smith,  his 
son-in-law.  Seemingly,  for  mutual  convenience  and  support, 
Agawam  was  at  iirst  associated  in  government  with  the  towns 
below.  This  connection,  always  wavering  or  disputed,  w^as 
not  formally  ended  till  1641.  (See  Palfrey's  History  of  ^^ew 
England,  i,  604.)  There  was  a  controversy  about  the  bound- 
ary line  and  the  right  of  jurisdiction  which  caused  confusion 
and  a  vacillating  policy. 

Undeniably,  that  was  an  extraordinary  form  of  government 
which  the  people  of  Connecticut  accepted  as  their  own.  Pro- 
vided, as  it  was,  by  another  colony — one  with  which  they  had 
now  no  political  connection — it  had,  of  course,  no  rightful 
authority,  and  could  bind  nobody.  On  the  2)art  of  Massachu- 
setts, it  was  a  manifest  usurpation.  In  appearance,  the  gov- 
erned, as  a  body,  had  no  voice  in  it,  took  no  action  concerning 
it,  yet  they  submitted  with  seeming  cheerfulness,  considering 
it,  probably,  as  a  needful  and  convenient  provisional  arrange- 
ment. 

To  the  commissioners  was  given  "full  power  to  hear  and 
determine,  in  a  judicial  w^ay,  all  differences  between  party  and 
party ;  to  imprison,  impose  lines,  and  inflict  corporal  punish- 
ment for  crimes,  and  to  order  the  affairs  of  the  plantations  in 
trading,  planting,  building,  military  discipline,  etc.,  as  shall 
best  conduce  to  the  public  good."  (Hazard,  i,  322.)  As  "A 
Courte,"  they  met,  for  the  first  time,  April  26,  1636,  in  Hart- 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.  6 

ford,  and  then  irregularly  in  the  other  settlements.  Without 
claiming  all  the  authority  their  commission  assumed  to  grant, 
they  took  charge  of  the  general  interests  of  the  towns,  leaving 
local  affairs  to  local  management.  I  infer  this  from  a  very 
brief  record  of  their  doings.  They  regulated  trade  with  the 
Indians,  made  rules  concerning  swine  running  at  large,  ap- 
pointed committees  to  trace  the  town  lines,  and  ordered  the 
soldiers  to  provide  themselves  with  ammunition,  and  to  train 
once  a  month.  To  prevent  surprise  l)y  hostile  Indians,  they 
required  watches  to  be  maintained.  They  ratified  certain 
church  proceedings,  and  performed  the  duties  of  courts  of 
justice  and  of  probate.  Largely,  doubtless,  they  acted  as  an 
advisory  committee,  their  own  interest  prompting  them  to 
seek  the  good  of  the  people  they  governed.  '*  The  court  of 
magistrates  "  was  the  name  they  applied  to  themselves  when  in 
session.  On  tlie  whole,  their  government  was  so  reasonable 
and  just  that  those  Living  under  it  did  not  probably  much  care 
by  whose  authority  they  held  office. 

The  first  planters  on  the  river  had  not  a  perfect  title  to  the 
soil  they  appropriated.  Faithfully  they  extinguished,  by  pur- 
chase, the  conflicting  and  often  doubtful  claims  of  the  native 
Indians,  who,  hoping  for  protection  from  their  old  oppressors, 
the  Mohawks  and  Pequots,  had,  several  years  before,  invited 
a  settlement  among  them ;  but  the  conceded  claim,  based  on 
priority  of  discovery,  of  another  party,  the  English  patentees, 
they  for  the  time  ignored.  When  we  refuse  to  call  them 
trespassers  and  s({uatters,  we  concede  much  to  their  conspicu- 
ous respectability  and  high  purpose.  Soon  they  were  called 
on,  by  proclamation,  to  acknowledge  the  prior  right  of  the 
foreign  proprietors.  The  demand  was  most  honorably  met  by 
an  offer  to  remove  on  the  payment  of  expenses  incurred. 
(Palfrey,  i,  451.)  But  they  did  not  remove,  and  were  not 
called  to  account.  Judged  by  the  rule  of  righteousness,  they 
were  not  debtors,  but  large  creditors.  Their  enterprise  and 
sacrifices  had  added  nnich  value  to  the  estate  of  the  patentees. 
The  latter  were  their  friends  and  well-wishers,  and  seemed  to 
take  this  view  of  the  case.     Not  till  the  charter  was  obtained 


4  EAKLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT. 

in  1662,  were  their  titles  and  the  right  of  jurisdiction  made 
secure.  Before  the  union,  the  Colony  of  'New  Haven  was  in 
the  same  condition  as  that  of  Connecticut. 

The  government  accepted  in  the  beginning  by  the  planters, 
according  to  Dr.  Palfrey  (i,  455),  "  was  found  in  practice 
inconvenient,"  and  the  commission,  when  the  year  had  ex- 
pired, was  not  renewed.  But  I  suspect  that  inconvenience, 
merely,  was  not  the  motive  for  non-renewal.  Much  heavy 
work  was  to  be  done — work  requiring  the  assistance  of  every 
able-bodied  man — and  it  is  probable  that  a  more  popular  gov- 
ernment was  demanded.  An  army  was  to  be  raised  and  war 
material  provided,  and  nothing  could  be  accomplished  without 
efficient  organization.  So,  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1637,  a 
'' General  Corte"  (the  first  in  Connecticut),  assembled  in  Hart- 
ford, having  two  classes  or  ranks  of  members.  In  the  first 
were  Roger  Ludlow,  William  Phelps,  Thomas  Wells  (of  Hart- 
ford), John  Steele,  William  Swaine,  and  Andrew  Ward,  two 
from  each  town,  all  members  of  the  old  commission,  Mr. 
Wells  a  short  time  only.  They  were  grave  magistrates,  and 
the  trusted  counselors  of  the  settlements,  whose  business  it 
doubtless  was  to  represent  wisely 'the  several  communities  as  a 
whole.  They  apparently  occupied  a  position  in  the  govern- 
ment similar  to  that  of  the  magistrates  under  the  Constitution 
of  1639.  A  very  brief  record  does  hot  give  all  the  informa- 
tion we  desire  on  this  and  other  points. 

The  second  class  of  members,  called  "  committees "  by  the 
recorder,  numbered  nine,  three  from  each  town.  They,  too, 
were  distinguished,  each  having  the  title  of  Mr. ;  but  they 
occupied  a  position,  both  socially  and  politically,  much  inferior 
to  that  of  the  other  class.  Presumably,  tliey  represented  the 
plantations  from  which  they  came.  But  till  recently  nothing 
has  been  certainly  known  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they,  or 
their  more  dignified  associates  in  the  Court,  were  selected 
for  office.  In  the  first  volume  of  Collections  of  the  Con- 
necticut Historical  Society,  Mr.  J.  H.  Trumbull  has  pub- 
lished a  letter  of  the  Pev.  Thomas  Hooker,  written  in  the 
fall  of  163 8 J  and  addressed  to  Governor  Winthrop,  of  Mass., 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  5 

in  wliich  he  says:  "at  the  time  of  our  election,  the  commit- 
tees of  the  town  of  Agawam  came  in  with  other  towns,  and 
chose  tlieir  magistrates,  installed  them  into  their  government, 
took  the  oath  of  office  of  them  for  the  execution  of  justice 
according  to  God,"  etc.  In  this  passage  (as  I  read  it)  it  is 
affirmed  that  the  committees  (deputies)  chose  the  magistrates, 
and  it  is  in  a  high  degree  probable  that  each  of  the  towns,  by 
a  popular  vote,  elected  its  committee,  as  was  afterward  done 
by  a  constitutional  provision. 

Thus  constituted,  the  General  Court,  all  the  members  seem- 
ingly acting  and  voting  together  as  one  representative  body, 
assembled  as  stated.  Its  weighty  business,  without  preamble 
or  any  whereases,  was  at  once  set  forth,  in  a  few  brief  sen- 
tences, as  follows : 

**It  is  ordered  that  there  shall  be  offensive  war  against  the  Pequot, 
and  there  shall  be  ninety  men  levied  out  of  the  three  plantations,  .  .  . 
out  of  Hartford,  forty-two,  Windsor,  thirty,  Wethersfield,  eighteen, 
under  the  command  of  Captain  John  Mason,  and,  in  case  of  death  or 
sickness,  under  the  command  of  Robert  Seely,  Lieutenant ;  and  [under] 
the  eldest  sergeant  or  military  officer  surviving,  if  both  these  miscarry." 

In  two  weeks,  Captain  Mason,  leading  seventy-seven  fight- 
ing Puritans,  armed  with  clumsy  tire-locks,  fire-brands,  and  the 
prayers  of  Mr.  Stone,  the  chaplain,  having  little  help  from 
four  hundred  and  sixty  friendly  but  frightened  Quaker  Indi- 
ans, destroyed,  captured,  and  scattered  forever,  the  whole  tribe 
of  heathen  Pequots,  the  most  powerful  and  ferocious  in  New 
England.  The  latter  had  among  them  one  thousand  warriors, 
while  the  whole  population  of  the  three  towns  was  only  about 
eight  hundred.  History  will  attribute  the  victory  to  the 
superiority  of  tire-arms  and  broadswords  over  'bows  and 
arrows,  l)ut  religious  men  proclaimed  it  due  to  providential 
interference.  At  the  same  time,  Captain  Mason  and  his  brave 
soldiers  were  gloritied  as  if  tliey  had  done  something.  They 
were  rewarded,  too,  by  a  special  grant  of  land  in  Hartford, 
called  the  "soldiers'  tield."  In  the  prosecution  of  the  war, 
there  were  certainly  some  remarkable  escapes. 

Under  the  date  of  February  9,  1637  (1038  as  we  now  reckon). 


6  EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

the  General  Court  was  dissolved,  "no  more  attendance  of  the 
members  thereof  to  be  expected,  except  they  be  newly  chosen." 
This  step,  at  this  time,  may  have  been  taken  in  order  to  admit, 
on  equal  terms,  Agawam  into  the  union  of  the  towns.  Though 
furnishing  no  men,  she  had  submitted  to  be  taxed  £86,  14:S. 
for  her  proportion  of  the  cost  of  the  Pequot  war,  the  whole 
expedition  equaling  £420.  It  was  right,  then,  that  she  should 
be  represented.  After  the  additions,  the  General  Court  which 
met  March  8,  1638,  consisted  of  eight  magistrates  and  twelve 
committee-men.  Of  the  former  class  were  Mr.  Pynchon  and 
Mr.  Smith  of  Agawam.  The  next  meeting,  April  5,  1638,  was 
the  last  before  the  Constitution,  so  called.  Mr.  Moxon  and  Mr. 
Burr,  as  a  committee  from  Agawam,  were  present. 

Of  the  nature  of  the  compact  which  at  this  time  united  the 
towns,  I  know  nothing  more  than  has  been  stated.  I  infer 
that  the  union  was  of  a  provisional  character,  wholly  voluntary 
in  its  origin,  and  perhaps  sustained  throughout  by  consent 
alone — sustained,  it  may  be,  while  the  leading  men  were  un- 
folding, discussing,  and  perfecting  the  scheme  for  a  permanent 
government  which  was  soon  to  be  ]3 resented  and  adopted. 
But  whatever  the  bond  which  connected  the  towns,  the  ad- 
ministration was  of  the  most  vigorous  kind,  peremptory  in  all 
its  methods.  If  the  General  Court  had  not  absolute  power,  I 
know  not  what  were  the  limitations.  Without  wasting  words, 
it  acted  with  promptness  and  power,  and  there  was  none  to 
gainsay.  Like  the  commission-government  which  preceded,  it 
enacted  general  laws  for  the  plantations,  apportioned  taxes 
among  the  towns,  'appointed  a  treasurer  and  collectors  for  the 
jurisdiction,  took  measures  to  remedy  the  short  supply  of  corn 
and  regulate  the  price,  fined  its  own  members  one  shilling 
each  for  absence  or  tardiness,  and  one  shilling  for  "  disorderly 
speaking  privately,  two  or  three  together,  during  the  sitting 
of  the  Court,  if  the  Court  think  meet."  Faithfully,  no  doubt, 
it  stood  guard  over  the  "commonwealth,"  so  styled  in  its 
proceedings. 

When  the  first  companies  from  Massachusetts  reached  their 
proposed  homes  on  the  Connecticut,  society  (politically  speak- 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  7 

iiig)  is  supposed  to  have  been  in  a  chaotic  state.  For  mutual 
helpfulness  and  defense,  they  settled  in  groups  not  far  apart. 
Sinking  for  the  moment  the  question  of  allegiance  to  a  foreign 
power,  each  man  must  have  been  his  own  sovereign,  bound  by 
the  moral  law,  but  having  no  political  ties.  Their  lands  and 
other  property  owned  in  common  were  to  be  divided,  roads 
laid  out,  bridges  constructed,  mischievous  cattle,  swine,  and 
boys  restrained,  taxes  levied,  and  collectors,  treasurers,  consta- 
bles, and  surveyors  appointed.  That  these  things  may  be 
done,  a  community  must  be  organized.  Where  all  have  equal 
rights,  equal  power,  and  diverse  interests,  an  organization 
could  be  best  secured  by  meeting  together  on  terms  of  equal- 
ity, and  after  discussion  and  perhaps  nmtual  concession,  agree- 
ing on  certain  rules  and  regulations  to  be  established  and 
enforced  for  the  good  of  all.  In  the  same  friendly  way, 
officers  could  be  chosen  to  superintend  the  public  affairs,  and 
carry  the  agreements  into  effect.  A  gathering  of  this  kind, 
embracing  a  whole  people  living  within  convenient  limits, 
would  be  a  town-meeting,  the  birth-place  and  starting-point, 
the  laboratory  and  training-school  of  our  republican  institu- 
tions. Where  justice,  right,  and  power  come  together  on  a 
footing  of  equality,  government  could  begin  in  no  other  way. 
Each  individual  would  have  a  vote  because  he  could  command 
it ;  because  there  was  no  existing  force,  compatible  with  the 
object  sought,  to  resist  it.  If  the  vote  should  be  divided,  the 
majority  rather  than  the  minority  would  rule,  because  might, 
now  organized,  is  on  its  side.  How  might  is  converted  into 
right,  as  dogmatists  assume,  how  divinity,  which  alone  gives 
authority  to  government,  can  afford  so  faithfully  to  follow 
power,  is  a  mystery.  Why  a  protesting  minority  retain  their 
equal  privileges  up  to  the  moment  when  a  vote  is  taken  and 
declared,  and  after  that  may  be  rightfully  coerced,  I  cannot 
even  conjecture.  But  here  is  deep  water,  and  I  must  go 
ashore. 

Under  the  pressure  of  circumstances,  the  three  river  towns 
were  organized  in  the  beginning,  as  suggested.  They  became 
distinct  political  bodies,  infant  connnouwealths.     Practically, 


8  EARLY   GOVERNMENT  OF   CONNECTICUT. 

they  were  independent  sovereignties,  having  no  occasion  or 
necessity  or  inducement  to  recognize  any  human  authority  out- 
side of  themselves.  Their  right  to  be,  to  exercise  power,  and 
to  make  laws  and  execute  them,  was  in  some  way  derived 
from  the  people — from  the  people  entering  into  compact  (im- 
pliedly at  least)  in  town-meeting.  These  meetings  were  held 
in  the  first  year  of  the  settlements,  one,  certainly,  in  Hartford 
in  1635  (Stuart's  Olden  Time,  p.  50),  and  one  or  more  in 
Windsor  in  the  same  year,  when  George  Hull  was  selectman 
(Stiles'  History  of  Windsor,  p.  129.) 

There  is  other  evidence  that  the  towns  were  in  existence 
and  duly  equipped  for  business  before  April  26,  1636,  for  at 
that  date  the  Massachusetts  commissioners,  holding  their  first 
Court,  referred  to  them  by  name,  and  appointed  committees  to 
run  the  boundary  lines.  Their  orders  and  those  of  the  Gen- 
eral Court  which  succeeded  them  were  usually  addressed 
directly  to  the  towns,  as  if  they  alone  had  the  machinery 
wanted  to  carry  commands  into  effect.  Thus  said  the  Court, 
in  its  imperial  way,  when  calling  for  supplies  for  the  Pequot 
war:  "Windsor  shall  provide  60  bushels  of  corn,  Hartford, 
84  bushels,  Wetherstield,  36  bushels,"  etc.  When,  however,  a 
tax  was  levied  to  pay  the  cost  of  the  expedition,  public  officers 
were  appointed,  a  common  treasurer,  and  one  collector  from 
each  town. 

It  is  probable  that  the  whole  male  population  who  had 
arrived  at  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  exclusive  of  slaves, 
were  permitted  to  vote  in  the  earliest  town-meetings.  They 
were  residents, .  so-called,  or  intended  residents,  all,  as  I  sup- 
pose, good  men  and  true.  But  erelong  the  goats  came  and 
mingled  with  the  sheep.  They  were  drones,  idlers,  beggars, 
vagrants,  or  "  tramps,"  of  both  sexes,  persons  of  loose  moral- 
ity and  soiled  reputations,  "  who  hoped  to  better  their  condition 
without  reforming  their  lives."  (Stuart's  Olden  Time,  pp.  52, 
100  ;  Chapin's  Glastenbury,  p.  30.)  If  the  records  must  be  be- 
lieved, they  were  a  graceless,  scurvy  lot,  not  much  better  than 
the  peasantry  and  servants  of  New  Haven  whom  President 
D wight  describes  as  "  distinguished  for  vice  and  profligacy." 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT  OF   CONNECTICUT.  9 

(Statistical  Account  of  New  Haven,  p.  36.)  Whence  came 
they  ?  It  cannot  be  tliat  they  formed  a  part  of  the  original 
companies  tliat  led  the  way  into  Connecticut,  under  the 
auspices  of  such  men  as  Hooker,  Stone,  Warham,  Ludlow, 
Wolcott,  Haynes,  and  others.  If  they  were  servants  trained 
up  in  Puritan  families,  in  accordance  with  the  rigfd  notions  of 
that  day,  how  was  it  that  they  became  so  wicked  and  worth- 
less ?  Largely,  doubtless,  they  were  interloping  visitors  set 
ashore  by  merchant  and  fishing  vessels  along  the  coast,  chiiefly 
at  Boston,  who,  driven  from  town  to  town  by  stringent  laws, 
were  seeking  a  resting  place,  finding  none. 

Not  only  was  the  example  of  these  people  contagious,  but 
they  might  at  any  time  become  paupers.  As  dangerous  and 
costly  intruders,  they  were  harried  by  the  authorities,  and 
when  possible  made  to  leave  the  plantations  and  the  country. 
Of  course  they  were  excluded  from  town-privileges.  By  law 
no  one  could  gain  a  legal  residence,  or  acquire  the  rights  of 
local  citizenship,  till  accepted  by  a  majority  vote  in  town- 
meeting.  The  persons  thus  accepted  were  called  admitted 
inhahitants.  Those  not  admitted,  termed  residents,  were  of 
course  not  all  vagrants,  idlers,  etc.  Among  them  were  doubt- 
less new-comers  whose  names  had  not  been  presented.  Others 
of  good  reputation  were  not  in  haste  to  assume  unnecessary 
responsibility,  and  had  no  time  to  give  to  town  business. 
There  were  then  no  fat  offices  to  be  distributed,  and  "  rings" 
for  plunder  liad  not  been  invented.  Seemingly,  those  not 
qualified  as  inliabitants  were,  and  continued  to  be,  a  somewhat 
numerous  class.  If  any  among  them  were  likely  to  become  a 
pu1)lic  charge,  they  might  be  warned  to  depart.  If  they  then 
lingered,  they  could  be  forcibly  removed,  and  occasionally 
were  given  bounties  to  go.     (Stuart's  Olden  Time,  p.  196.) 

Said  Governor  Leete,  in  1680 :  "  Beggars  and  vagabonds 
are  not  suffered  in  the  Colony,  l)ut  when  discovered  are  bound 
out  to  service  [that  is,  sold  for  a  limited  time] ;  yet  sometimes 
a  vaga])ond  person  will  pass  up  and  down  the  country,  abusing 
the  people  with  false  news,  cheating  and  stealing ;  but  when 
discovered  he  is  punished  according  to  the  oifense."  Whip- 
2 


10         EARLY  aOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

ping,  administered  by  some  one  who  had  himself  suffered  the 
infliction,  was  the  usual  punishment.  It  had  the  effect  to  dis- 
franchise the  person  receiving  it.  (Stuart's  Olden  Time,  238, 
248,  300 ;  Conn.  Col.  Rec,  i,  559.) 

So  far  as  they  are  a  defense  against  outside  pauperism,  the 
regulations  referred  to,  somewhat  modified,  are  still  in  exist- 
ence. Individuals  are  now  made  inhabitants  eitlier  l)y  a  town 
vote,  "or  by  the  consent  of  the  civil  authority  and  select- 
men." 

When  the  roving  and  obnoxious  class  became  more  numer- 
ous and  troublesome,  as  in  a  few  years  it  did,  the  towns,  gain- 
ing wisdom  from  experience,  seem  to  have  been  increasingly 
rigid  in  admitting  to  town  privileges.  About  1659,  there  was 
a  large  accession  to  the  class  named,  and  between  1650  and 
1665  but  eight  admissions  are  noted  on  the  Hartford  town 
records.  (Stuart's  Olden  Time,  196.)  Families  were  forbid- 
den to  give  them  encouragement.  Those  receiving  them  as 
boarders  or  tenants  incurred  a  penalty  of  five  pounds.  Is  it 
possible  that  at  first,  or  at  a  later  period,  they  were  driven 
from  the  Bay  and  told  to  "  go  West,"  where,  according  to 
popular  opinion,  the  land  flowed  with  milk  and  honey,  and  a 
living  could  be  had  without  work?  In  the  caustic  letter 
already  referred  to  from  Mr.  Hooker  to  Governor  Winthrop, 
in  1638,  the  writer  complains  bitterly  of  the  course  pursued 
by  Massachusetts  in  dissuading  immigrants,  at  that  time  numer- 
ous and  of  good  quality,  from  going  to  Connecticut.  In  the 
inns  at  Boston,  in  Boston  harbor,  on  their  first  arrival,  and 
even  in  London  before  embarkation,  they  were  met  and  be- 
sought, if  they  would  not  be  undone,  not  to  go  to  Connecticut, 
"where  [the  detractors  alleged]  the  cows  were  all  dead,  •^-  -^  * 
the  upland  will  bear  no  corn,  the  meadows  nothing  but  weeds, 
and  the  people  were  almost  all  starved."  It  is  certain  that  the 
large  removals  two  or  three  years  before,  and  the  departure  of 
the  Eaton  and  Davenport  company  afterward,  greatly  annoyed 
the  older  colony  {ante,  p.  293).  Yehemently  and  not  always 
patiently  they  were  opposed,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  like 
opposition  was  continued   whenever  the  occasion   presented. 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         11 

Evidently,  there  was  a  8crani])le  among  the  plantations  to 
secure  the  choicer  lots  of  settlers,  and  equal  endeavor,  doubt- 
less, to  persuade  evil-minded  or  suspected  persons  not  to  tarry. 
In  the  struggle,  those  living  near  the  usual  landing-place, 
Boston,  got  the  first  chance  at  the  new-comers,  having  a  great 
advantage  over  Connecticut  and  New  Haven  colonists.  Had 
they  not  improved  it,  they  would  have  been  unlike  the  other 
children  of  our  fallen  ancestors.  However  the  business  was 
conducted,  the  criminal  records  of  the  western  settlements 
show  that  they  fared  very  hard  in  the  contest,  certainly  in  that 
part  of  it  which  related  to  the  disposal  of  the  vagrant  and 
vicious  classes. 

Among  the  laws  of  the  IS'ew  Plaven  Colony  (Code  of  1656)  is 
one  forbidding  any  person  to  receive  or  entertain  strangers  or 
sojourners  (men  or  women),  proposing  to  become  planters,  or  to 
sell  or  lease  to  them  houses  or  lands,  or  to  permit  them  to  remain 
longer  than  one  month,  without  a  license  from  a  magistrate,  or 
the  consent  of  the  major  part  of  the  freemen,  etc.,"  under  the  pen- 
alty of  ten  pounds."  A  year  afterward,  1657,  an  order  required 
that  a  seaman  or  other  person  bringing  any  one  into  any  town 
without  leave,  who  should  not  be  accepted  as  an  inhabitant, 
should  be  forced  to  carry  him  away  again,  "  that  the  plantation 
be  not  troubled  or  charged  mth  him."  (N.  H.  Col.  Rec,  ii,  610, 
217.)  These  enactments  indicate  that  the  settlements  were 
overrun  by  "  strangers,  sojourners,"  intruders,  characters  not 
wanted  either  for  use  or  ornament ;  that  they  were  introduced 
by  seamen  and  others,  and  that  the  safety  of  the  ''  Jurisdiction  " 
required  their  removal  or  exclusion. 

The  united  towns,  in  General  Court,  must  have  made  free- 
men, for  freemen  are  recognized  as  already  existing  by  the  Con- 
stitution of  January,  1639.  That  instrument  required  that  all 
the  members  of  the  General  Court  should  be  freemen  of  the 
Commonwealth  before  they  could  be  elected,  and  before  the 
existence  of  the  new  Court,  which  alone  had  authority  to  admit 
freemen. 

After  a  memorable  life  of  twenty  months,  the  united  gov- 
ernment (the  first  Commonwealth  of  Connecticut)  was  allowed 


12         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

to  expire,  a  more  elaborate  one  having  been  prepared  to  take 
its  place.  As  I  understand  it,  its  dissolution  left  the  three  towns 
in  the  same  condition  they  were  in  when  first  organized,  inde- 
pendent or  quasi-sovereignties,  directed  and  controlled  by  the 
original  settlers  and  admitted  inhabitants.  For  adequate  cause, 
the  whole  people,  holding  in  abeyance  their  several  town  com- 
pacts, and  falling  back  on  their  primitive  rights,  consented  to 
assemble  on  the  14th  day  of  January,  1638  (January  24,  1639, 
new^  style),  for  the  high  purpose  of  considering  and  (if  approved) 
adopting  a  written  constitution,  and  establishing  a  consolidated 
and  enduring  government.  They  met  in  convention,  and  after 
a  prayer,  probably  by  Mr;  Hooker,  chose  a  Secretary,  John 
Steele,  and,  of  course,  a  Moderator,  John  Ilaynes  Q).  Then, 
having  severed  all  political  ties,  each  his  own  sovereign  and  del- 
egate as  in  the  primal  towm-meeting,  they  "  pooled,"  so  to  say, 
their  respective  sovereignties,  throwing  all  into  a  common  stock. 
At  this  stage  the  unassorted  and  formless  elements  of  a  body  poli- 
tic were  in  a  state  of  solution  or  fusion.  But  this  is  not  history, 
and  I  forbear. 

The  Constitution  which  grew  out  of  these  proceedings  has 
been  said  by  a  distinguished  historical  writer,  to  be  "  the  first 
example  in  history  of  a  written  constitution,  a  distinct  organic 
law,"  "  proceeding  from  a  people  and  in  their  name  establishing 
and  defining  a  government."  (Dr.  Bacon's  Early  Const.  History 
of  Conn.)  So  far  as  the  two  can  be  compared,  the  government 
which  it  instituted  was  similar  to  that  which  immediately  pre- 
ceded it.  Having  acted  a  distinguished  part  in  the  affairs  of 
Massachusetts,  its  framers  were  prepared  to  select  and  appro- 
priate whatever  was  good  in  the  polity  of  that  colony,  and  reject  ^ 
the  evil. 

Says  the  remarkable  document  which  the  people  were  called 
on  to  approve :  "  We,  the  inhabitants  and  residents  ["  the  free 
planters,"  say  Dr.  Trumbull  and  others]  of  Windsor,  Hartford, 
and  Wethersfield,  now  cohabiting  and  dwelling  on  the  river 
Connecticut,"  "  for  ourselves  and  successors,  and  such  as  shall 
be  adjoined  to  us  hereafter,"  "  do  associate  and  conjoin  ourselves 
as  one  public  state  or  commonwealth,"  etc.     The  language  is 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         13 

comprehensive — we^  the  inlmbitmits  and  residents — as  if  the 
whole  population  (exclusive,  doubtless,  of  those  whom  custom 
disqualified,  as  minors,  women,  bondmen,  and  convicted  crimi- 
nals) was  present.  We  are  not  told  whether  all  were,  in  fact, 
present,  or  whether  all  had  been  properly  warned.  Probably 
some,  perhaps  many,  were  absent,  detained  by  sickness,  lame- 
ness, watching  and  warding,  or  by  deep  snows,  bad  weather  and 
worse  roads.  If  the  meeting  was  held  in  the  most  convenient 
place,  Hartford  (as  it  probably  was),  the  people  of  Windsor 
would  have  had  a  long  distance  to  travel  in  midwinter,  through 
the  wilderness.  Besides,  there  was  then  but  little  interest  taken 
in  political  affairs — so  little  that  Hartford,  to  secure  a  better 
attendance  at  town-meetings,  was  constrained  to  impose  a  fine 
of  sixpence  on  those  who  staid  away.  (Stuart's  Olden  Time, 
p.  53.)  At  that  period  there  was  no  drumming  and  bannered  or 
mousing  politicians  to  get  out  the  voters. 

If  any  were  not  notified,  or  were  absent  by  no  fault  of  their 
own,  how  were  they  represented  in  convention,  or  how  bound 
by  the  uninvited,  perhaps  condemned  action  of  others?  As 
recorded,  the  Fundamental  Orders,  so  called,  unlike  the  Funda- 
mental Agreement  of  the  l^ew  Haven  colonists,  have  no 
signers  to  show  who  (then  or  afterward)  assented.  Unwilling 
to  pursue  this  subject,  I  must  only  whisper  my  suspicion  that 
the  meeting  was  not  large.  It  may  be  too  that  those  in  at- 
tendance were  half -frozen  in  an  unheated  room,  and  impatient 
to  get  away.  On  such  an  occasion,  there  could  not  have  been 
much  religious  fervor  to  keep  out  the  cold.  To  save  time,  and 
forestall  needless  debate  and  delay,  the  important  work  was 
doubtless  done  beforehand,  in  private  conference.  Among 
those  present,  it  will  be  safe  to  count  Roger  Ludlow,  John 
Haynes,  and  the  Rev.  Thomas  Hooker,  the  reputed  authors  of 
the  document  to  be  considered.  To  these  distinguished  names, 
on  plausible  grounds,  may  be  added  those  of  Edward  Hopkins, 
George  Wyllys,  John  Webster,  Henry  Wolcott,  magnates  all, 
besides  a  few  commoners,  and  a  sprinkling  of  stragglers  and 
passers-by. 

The  pilgrims  who  came  to  Connecticut  were  shrewd,  com- 


14         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

mon-sense  Englislimeii.  Tliey  loved  tlieir  native  country  and 
its  government.  They  loved  the  church  and  its  doctrines,  but 
not  its  discipline.  When  landing  on  these  western  shores 
they  did  not  renounce  either,  but  those  who  settled  the  three 
towns  found  it  necessary  or  convenient  to  ignore  both.  They 
were  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  Massachusetts;  were  not 
hemmed  in  like  others  by  the  restrictions  of  a  joint  stock  com- 
pany, nor  fettered  by  a  royal  charter.  They  were  alone  in  the 
wilderness,  dependent  on  themselves  for  protection  and  the 
means  of  existence.  They  were  farmers.  Their  lands  were 
to  be  parcelled  out  and  subdued,  order  established,  laws  en- 
acted, crimes  punished,  hostile  Indians  kept  at  bay,  churches 
planted  and  defended.  There  was  no  power  outside  the  settle- 
ments to  which  they  could  look  for  help.  Whatever  relation 
they  may  have  sustained  to  the  mother  country,  three  thousand 
miles  away,  it  had  for  the  moment  no  present  or  practical  value. 
Meeting  under  these  circumstances,  with  few  precedents  to 
guide  them,  and  obliged  to  act  for  themselves,  their  civil  like 
their  ecclesiastical  government  would  naturally,  almost  inevi- 
tably, assume  a  republican  and  independent  form.  At  the  out- 
set, in  their  solitary  condition,  they  would  no  more  think  of 
proclaiming,  in  due  form,  their  allegiance  to  a  foreign  king, 
who  knew  not  of  their  existence,  than  would  a  company  of 
cast-away  sailors  on  a  lonely  island.  Sufficient  it  was  that  they 
did  not  deny  it.  They  doubtless  thought  with  some  bitterness 
of  the  wrongs  they  had  suffered,  but  liaving  sought  obscurity 
to  escape  further  persecution,  they  avoided  needless  display, 
and  deprecated  the  damaging  notoriety  which  tlieir  restless 
friends  "  at  the  Bay"  had  obtained.  They  could  gain  nothing, 
but  might  lose  much,  by  ])rematurely  invoking  the  name  of  a 
prince  who  was  doing  all  he  could  to  enforce  conformity  and 
crush  Puritanism  in  his  kingdom.  The  formal  acknowledge- 
ment of  themselves  as  subjects,  the  confession  of  undying 
loyalty,  would  not  have  given  strength,  or  authority,  or  purity, 
or  legitimacy,  to  the  government  they  were  about  to  establish. 
There  was,  then,  no  temptation  in  that  direction.  The  inde- 
pendence which,  at  this  time,  the  planters  desired  was  ecclesi' 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  15 

astical,  more  tlian  political.  A  few  years  later,  they  were  very 
glad  to  concede  tlieir  colonial  dependence,  and  accept  a  royal 
charter  which  seemed  to  promise  security  from  outside  dicta- 
tion in  the  matter  of  religion.  So  much  I  liave  said  in  expla- 
nation of  a  noteworthy  omission  in  the  Constitution. 

It  is  evident  that  the  planters  of  Connecticut  intended  prac- 
tical independence,  so  long  as  that  was  necessary  for  the  safety 
of  tlieir  peculiar  institutions ;  but  I  do  not  find  that  they  had 
more  than  others  far-reaching  views,  or  any  settled  purpose  of 
founding  a  great  republic.  So  long  as  the  future  was  uncer- 
tain, black  clouds  hanging  portentously  over  their  English 
homes,  steadily  they  styled  themselves  or  their  government  a 
Commonwealth,  or  when  lawful  authority  was  implied,  a 
Jurisdiction ;  but  when  King  Charles  had  been  beheaded,  and 
England  had  itself  become  a  Commonwealth,  ruled  by  Oliver 
Cromwell,  Protector  and  Puritan,  they  deemed  their  religion 
secure,  and  afterward,  till  the  Charter  was  obtained,  usually 
called  themselves  a  Colony.  This  would  seem  to  show  that 
they  sought  religious  priv^ilege  more  than  independence. 

Those  who  fled  from  England  to  this  country  were  com- 
pelled to  do  so,  or  observe  certain  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
English  church  which  they  believed  unscriptural  and  therefore 
wrong.  They  objected  to  the  cap  and  surplice,  the  ring  in 
marriage,  the  cross  in  baptism,  the  rite  of  confirmation,  kneel- 
ing at  the  Lord's  supper,  etc.  The  people  of  Connecticut,  liv- 
ing in  the  woods,  and  having  unrestricted  power  to  choose, 
resolved  to  worship  according  to  their  convictions,  omitting  all 
not  in  harmony  with  their  belief.  They  did  not  contend  for 
religious  liberty  as  a  principle,  but  practical  liberty  for  them- 
selves and  their  children ;  libertj^  to  serve  God,  not  in  the 
manner  of  the  churches  at  home,  but  in  the  way  "  now  prac- 
ticed amongst  us."  They  denied  the  right  of  coercion  in  de- 
fense of  religious  error,  but  solemnly  afiirmed  it  when  the 
true  faith  (meaning  their  own)  was  in  jeopardy.  Their  Eng- 
lish oppressors  denied  and  affirmed  the  same  things.  That 
they  might  pursue  their  own  liberty  as  here  set  forth  and 
defined,  protect  tlie  forms  and  practices  then  in  use,  and  sup- 


16         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

press  whatever  should  threaten  to  displace  them,  all  by  the 
civil  power,  "  according  to  God,"  they  assembled  in  convention 
as  has  been  stated.  Their  purpose  and  ruling  motive  are 
plainly  announced  in  the  preamble,  thus :  We,  etc.,  "  do  enter 
into  combination  and  confederation"  'Ho  maintain  and  pre- 
serve the  liberty  and  purity  of  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
which  we  now  profess,  and  also  [to  maintain]  the  discipline  of 
the  churches  which,  according  to  the  truth  of  the  said  gospel, 
is  now  pf-acticed  amongst  us."  The  object — the  primary 
object — here  so  conspicuously  set  forth,  so  far  as  good  sense 
and  a  dependent  condition  permitted,  was  faithfully  carried 
out  in  the  legislation  which  followed.  Nothing  is  said  in  the 
preamble  of  political  rights  or  civil  liberty,  and  nothing  special 
on  the  ends  of  civil  government ;  but  the  sentence  which 
immediately  succeeds  the  last  quotation  reads  as  follows : 

"As  also  in  our  civil  affairs  to  be  guided  and  governed  according  to 
such  laws,  rules,  orders  and  decrees  as  shall  be  made,  ordered  and 
decreed." 

The  work  done  with  so  much  cruelty  by  the  ecclesiastical  or 
spiritual  courts  in  England,  was,  in  Connecticut,  committed  to 
the  hands  of  the  civil  power,  not  formally,  but  by  implication. 
Devoutly,  no  doubt,  those  who  entered  into  combination  be- 
lieved that  conformity  and  the  discipline  of  the  churches  should 
be  rigidly  maintained — maintained,  not  by  a  high  commission 
court,  not  by  the  church  or  its  officers  exercising  judicial 
functions,  but  by  the  civil  authority  alone,  according  to  the  laws 
and  orders  of  the  General  Court,  or  in  the  absence  of  law,  accor- 
ding to  the  word  of  God.  A  government  established  to  control 
the  will  in  matters  of  conscience  could  not  be  a  free  govern- 
ment ;  nor  could  conduct  thus  controlled  have  the  smallest 
merit.  It  is  but  truth,  however,  to  say  that  the  laws  of  Connec- 
ticut and  their  administration  were  more  merciful  and  enlight- 
ened than  those  of  the  mother  country ;  but  not  much  that  is 
good  could  be  expected  from  either  source  so  long  as  religious 
liberty  was  not  recognized  as  a  principle.  Its  denial  was  the 
calamitous  mistake,  the  crowning  blunder  of  the  age. 

I  am  afraid  Dr.  Trumbull,  a  very  honest  man,  is  responsible 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         17 

for  much  of  the  misapprehension  which  has  prevailed  relative 
to  the  purposes,  opinions,  institutions,  and  practices  of  our  pil- 
grim fathers,  in  their  bearing  on  the  great  questions  of  liberty 
and  conscience.  I  quote  from  the  iirst  (and  best)  volume  of 
his  History  of  Connecticut,  1797 : 

"The  settlement  of  New  England,  purely  for  the  purposes  of  religion, 
and  the  propagation  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  is  a  event  which  has 
no  parallel  in  the  history  of  modern  ages."  The  people  of  Connecticut 
"formed  one  of  the  most  free  and  happy  constitutions  of  government 
which  mankind  have  ever  adopted."  They  "  provided  for  the  freedom 
and  liberties  of  themselves  and  their  posterity,  guarding  against  every 
encroachment  on  the  rights  of  the  subject."  "  It  was  the  design  of  the 
first  planters  to  erect  churches,  *  *  and  to  transmit  evangelical  purity 
in  doctrine,  worship,  and  discipline,  with  civil  and  religious  liberty  to 
their  posterity."    (pp.  1,  2,  97,  292.) 

An  eminent  modern  writer  (Dr.  Leonard  Bacon)  presents  a 
different  view,  but  one  entirely  conformable  to  the  facts : 

"  The  Puritan's  idea  was  not  liberty  but  right  government  in  church 
and  State — such  government  as  should  not  only  permit  him,  but  also 
compel  other  men  to  walk  in  the  right  way.  For  that  he  went  into 
exile,"  etc. 

But  this  view  does  not  differ  from  that  entertained  by  other 
ecclesiastics,  each  assuming  and  believing  that  his  and  his  only 
is  the  "  right  way."  In  the  forum  of  conscience  the  right  way 
is  that  which  a  man's  own  conscience  approves,  not  that  which 
meets  the  approval  of  other  consciences,  however  respectable. 
To  the  Puritan's  idea,  as  above  defined,  Whitgif t,  Bancroft,  and 
the  relentless  Laud,  no  doubt  would  have  subscribed  heartily. 
That  idea  kindled  the  iires  of  Smithiield.  Wherever  those  in 
power  have  thought  it  their  duty  to  "compel  other  men  to 
walk  in  the  right  way  "  in  matters  of  religious  faith  and  disci- 
pline, there  oppressors  have  abounded. 

Dr.  Trumbull  makes  another  statement  which  should  be 
noticed  in  this  connection. 

"  The  fathers  of  Connecticut,"  he  affirms,  "rejected  with  abhorrence 
the  doctrines  of  the  divine  right  of  kings,  passive  obedience,  and  non-re- 
sistance," etc.     (Hist,  i,  297.) 


18         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

I  can  find  no  evidence  that  warrants  this  strong  language. 
As  I  understand  it,  our  Puritan  ancestors  did  not  object  to  the 
divine  right  of  kings,  or  complain  of  their  government,  till  the 
kings  began  to  rule  oppressively,  using  power  (which,  in  one 
sense,  is  always  divine)  unscrupulously  and  on  the  wrong  side. 
Like  others,  they  did  not  believe  that  any  government,  whatever 
its  origin,  held  an  authoritative  commission  to  do  wrong.  They 
fled  from  England,  not  because  they  abhorred  the  doctrine  of 
divine  right,  but  that  they  might  have  Jiberty  to  worship  in 
their  own  way.  In  the  language  of  Dr.  Bacon,  they  were  in 
search  of  "  right  government  in  church  and  State — such  govern- 
ment as  should  not  only  permit  them,  but  compel  other  men  to 
walk  in  the  right  way." 

The  Constitution  has  eleven  Articles.  I  shall  speak  of  tliem 
in  the  order  most  convenient.  As  if  to  fill  with  terror  the  hearts 
of  transgressors,  each  (with  one  unimportant  exception)  begins 
thus  :  "  It  is  ordered,  sentenced,  and  decreed."  The  first  pro- 
vided that  there  should  be  two  general  assemblies  or  courts 
yearly,  one  on  the  second  Thursday  of  April,  the  other  on  the 
second  Thursday  of  September.  At  the  first,  called  the  Court 
of  Election,  were  to  be  chosen  for  one  year,  by  the  assembled 
freemen  of  the  jurisdiction,  not  less  than  six  magistrates  besides 
the  Governor.  They  were  to  be  freemen,  and  were  elected  one  at 
a  time,  by  ballot,  the  Governor  first.  All  must  have  been  pro- 
pounded at  some  previous  General  Court.  Having  been  sworn, 
they  had  "  power  to  administer  justice  according  to  the  laws 
here  established,  and  for  want  thereof  according  to  the  rule  of 
the  word  of  God."  "  The  laws  established  and  the  word  of 
God"  having  been  declared  the  rule,  there  could,  of  course,  be 
no  other  law.  Thus  was  set  aside  all  English  law,  whether  stat- 
utory or  common.  Except  incidentally,  nothing  is  said  here  or 
elsewhere  about  the  magistrates  exercising  other  than  judicial 
functions. 

As  special  qualifications,  the  Governor  was  to  be  "  a  member 
of  some  approved  congregation"  (not  churchy  as  Dr.  Trumbull 
and  Dr.  Palfrey  have  it),  and  must  once  have  been  a  magistrate. 
As  a  curb  to  his  ambition,  and  perhaps  to  give  others  a  chance 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         19 

to  attain  equal  distinction,  lie  could  not  hold  his  office  often er 
than  every  other  year.  Thus  was  prevented  possible  discon- 
tent similar  to  that  which  Governor  Winthrop's  prolonged  con- 
tinuance in  office  occasioned  in  Massachusetts.  The  Governor 
was  the  honored  head  of  the  magistracy,  presided  at  the  meet- 
ings of  the  Court  of  Magistrates  and  of  the  General  Court,  but 
had  no  power  distinct  from  his  associates.  Ko  special  duty 
was  assigned  him,  except  that  of  warning  (through  the  secre- 
tary and  town  constables)  the  "two  standing  General  Coui-ts ;" 
and  he  might,  on  urgent  occasions,  with  the  consent  of  a  ma- 
jority of  the  magistrates,  call  special  courts.  No  deputy-gov- 
ernor is  provided  for  by  the  Constitution,  but  the  first  magis- 
trate (after  the  Governor)  is  constantly  recognized,  by  the 
recorders,  as  holding  that  office. 

To  the  aforesaid  Court  of  Election,  the  towns  were  required 
(Order  5)  to  send  their  deputies,  "and  when  the  election  is 
ended,  they  [with  the  magistrates]  may  proceed  in  any  public 
service,  as  at  other  courts."  The  General  Court  of  September, 
also,  was  "  for  the  making  of  laws,  and  any  other  public  occa- 
sion which  concerns  the  good  of  the  Commonwealth."  All 
the  members  of  both  classes  sat  and  voted  as  one  body,  the 
Governor,  in  case  of  a  tie,  having  a  casting  vote.  He  could 
not  adjourn  nor  dissolve  the  Court. 

Each  of  the  towns  then  in  existence  might  send  four  depu- 
ties, twelve  in  all,  and  the  towns  yet  to  be  made  "  so  many  as 
the  (yourt  shall  judge  meet,  a  reasonable  proportion  to  the  num- 
ber of  freemen."  They  must  themselves  be  freemen,  and  were 
elected  for  each  of  the  regular  courts,  twice  in  the  year,  by 
ballot.  The  electors  were  not  the  freemen,  as  assumed  by  Dr. 
Trumbull,  but  the  "admitted  inhabitants"  of  the  several  towns. 
Mere  "  residents,"  though  recognized  as  a  rightful  element  of 
the  constituent  body,  and  presumably  disposed  to  take  care  of 
themselves,  the  convention  sat  down  on  heavily,  no  doubt  with 
design,  and  perhaps  by  invitation.  They  had  no  vote,  and 
thenceforth  (politically)  were  extinguished.  It  is  true  they 
could  be  made  inhabitants  and  voters  if  the  towns  willed  it, 
but  I  presume  the  will  would  have  been  wanting  if  the  appli- 


20         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

cants  were  "  Quakers,  Kanters,  or  such-like  notorious  heretics," 
or  if  they  refused  to  conform  to  "the  discipline  of  the 
churches"  as  "  now  practiced  amongst  us,"  however  unexcep- 
tionable they  otherwise  may  have  been. 

The  constitution-makers  probably  felt  constrained  to  allow 
the  towns  to  elect  their  deputies  by  a  majority  vote  of  the 
admitted  inhabitants,  because  the  town-officers,  and  those  in 
the  service  of  the  towns,  had  alw^ays  been  chosen  in  that  way ; 
but  they  evidently  intended,  as  far  as  possible,  to  make  the 
freemen  who,  as  a  class,  haci  no  voice  in  the  convention,  the 
constituent  body,  the  fountain  and  ultimate  custodians  of  all 
power.  Hence  it  was  provided  that  no  person  should  be  nom- 
inated for  the  magistracy  till  he  had  been  propounded  by  the 
General  Court ;  that  all  the  members  of  the  Court,  Governor, 
Magistrates,  and  Deputies,  should  be  freemen,  and  that  they 
alone  should  admit  freetnen ;  that  new  towns  should  send 
deputies  in  proportion  to  the  number,  not  of  admitted  inhab- 
itants, but  of  their  freemen ;  that  the  deputies,  in  giving  votes 
and  making  laws,  should  have  the  whole  power  of  the  towns, 
leaving  to  the  latter  only  the  right  to  elect  from  a  qualified 
and  much  favored  class  among  themselves  (the  class  of  free- 
men) their  own  deputies. 

A  mere  inhabitant,  though  a  principal  actor  in  the  conven- 
tion, could  not  become  a  member  of  the  General  Court.  He 
was  disqualified.  Consequently,  he  could  not,  directly,  or 
through  another  of  his  own  class  (politically),  have  a  voice  in 
the  legislation  by  which  he  was  governed.  At  first,  if  of  good 
reputation,  and  afterward  if  competent  in  estate,  he  could  be 
made  a  freeman,  and  so  regain  his  rights,  if  the  freemen  of  the 
General  Court  assented ;  but  it  is  safe  to  say  they  w^ould  not 
assent  if  the  candidate  were  a  heretic,  or  if  in  practice  he  set 
at  naught  that  discipline  of  the  churches  which  the  Court  was 
bound  to  maintain.  In  this  manner,  doubtless,  it  was  expected 
that  the  law-makers,  without  a  provision  requiring  electors  to 
be  church-members,  would  be  able  to  exclude  from  their  own 
body  unsound  and  hostile  elements,  and  so  to  shape  legislation 
as  best  to  attain  the  ends  set  forth  in  the  Constitution.     In  civil 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         ^1 

aifairs,  no  iiiaii  (iu  theory)  was  allowed  to  enjoy  the  smallest 
privilege,  or  to  exercise  the  least  authority,  in  virtue  of  his 
ecclesiastical  standing  or  connection.  That  connection  gave 
him  character,  intiuence,  moral  power,  but  no  right  or  privilege 
in  law.  It  was  thought,  perhaps,  that  churches  had  enough  to 
do  to  train  the  youth,  and  iit  all  classes  for  their  duties,  relig- 
ious and  political,  without  taking  a  part  in  civil  administration. 
Except  as  the  wards  of  the  government,  they  are  not  so  much 
as  named  in  the  instrument  promising  them  protection.  The 
nearest  approach  to  it  will  be  found  in  the  fourth  fundamental 
order,  where  the  Governor  w^as  required  to  "  be  always  a  mem- 
ber of  some  approved  congregation."  But  as,  in  practice,  all 
the  people  in  each  town  were  legal  members  of  the  congrega- 
tion, this  requirement  was  superfluous. 

The  freemen  of  Connecticut  under  the  Constitution  were  a 
kind  of  popular  aristocracy,  holding  a  midway  station  between 
the  plebeian  and  patrician  classes.  Supported,  seemingly,  by 
both,  they  became  the  trusted  pillars  of  the  Commonwealth. 
Evidently,  they  were  not  numerous.  What  their  number  was 
when  the  Constitution  was  adopted  is  unknown  ;  but  in  the  first 
ten  years  which  followed,  I  cannot  find  that  more  than  twenty- 
three  were  admitted.  During  the  whole  life  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, from  January,  1639,  to  October,  1662,  nearly  twenty-four 
years,  t.wo  hundred  and  twenty-nine  admissions  are  on  record ; 
while  the  increase  of  population  may  have  been  three  thousand, 
one-quarter  of  them  males  of  legal  age.  The  facts  indicate 
that  only  a  small  proportion,  certainly  a  minority,  of  those  of 
twenty-one  years  and  over,  were  freemen,  some  of  them,  doubt- 
less, because  they  did  not  desire  the  honors,  if  they  must  also 
bear  the  burdens.  In  Massachusetts,  where  none  but  church- 
members  voted,  the  freemen  in  1670,  according  to  Palfrey, 
were  only  one  in  four  or  five  of  the  male  adults,  (iii,  41.) 
In  Plymouth  Colony  the  people  were  so  indifferent  that  it  w^as 
customary  "  to  persuade,  sometimes  compel  them,  to  be  free." 
(Narrative  of  the  Royal  Commissioners,  1666.) 

Dr.  Trumbull,  who  is  not  often  in  error,  says  that  the  Consti- 
tution "provided  that  all  persons,  who  had  been  received  as 


^2  EARLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT. 

members  of  the  several  towns,  bj  a  majority  of  the  inhabitants, 
and  had  taken  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  Commonwealth,  shonld 
be  admitted  freemen."  He  would  have  written  more  exactly 
had  he  said  that  all  persons  thus  received  might  be  admitted 
by  the  General  Court.  That  instrument  did  not,  in  a  formal 
way,  authorize  the  regular  courts  to  make  freemen,  but  they 
assumed  and  exercised  the  power.  The  business  was  usually 
done  at  the  Courts  of  Election,  in  April  or  May,  and  sometimes 
by  magistrates  designated  for  that  service.  (Conn.  Col.  Rec,  i, 
36,  47.) 

Massachusetts  and  afterward  New  Haven  endeavored  to  give 
the  highest  excellence  to  their  political  institutions  by  requir- 
ing freemen  and  voters  to  be  church-members,  a  rule  which 
excluded  a  majority  of  the  people,  and  established  a  privileged 
ecclesiastical  order ;  but  the  planters  of  Connecticut,  also  the 
friends  of  good  government  as  well  of  limited  suffrage,  assumed 
that  the  desired  end  might  be  more  safely  attained  in  another 
way,  as  we  have  seen.  They  may  have  suspected  that  men 
elected  to  office  by  a  church-constituency  would  represent  the 
churches  rather  than  the  Commonwealth,  and  might,  in  a  pos- 
sible contingency,  be  tempted  to  clothe  those  they  represented 
with  dangerous  power,  and  perhaps  to  establish  spiritual  courts, 
of  which  even  the  name  caused  a  shudder. 

In  the  abstract  of  a  sermon  deciphered  by  Mr.  J.  H.  Trum- 
bull (Conn.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  i,  20),  preached  in  May,  1638, 
probably  to  prepare  his  hearers  to  act  on  the  Constitution  soon 
to  be  offered,  Mr.  Hooker  is  made  to  say  that  "  the  privilege  of 
election  belongs  to  the  people  ;"  "  that  the  foundation  of  au- 
thority is  laid  in  the  people  ;"  and  that  they  who  choose  officers 
and  magistrates  may  "  set  the  bounds  and  limitations  of  the 
power  and  place  unto  which  they  call  them." 

The  men  who  framed  and  adopted  the  Constitution  were  doubt- 
less infiuenced  largely  by  the  views  announced  in  these  brief 
sentences.  In  laying  the  foundations,  they  recognized  the 
people  as  the  fountain  of  all  just  authority,  but  in  the  progress 
of  the  work  forgot  the  principle  at  first  conceded.  In  effect 
they  divided  the  population  into  classes,  conferred  special  priv- 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 


it 


ileges,  and  gave  tlieir  sanction  to  a  system  of  exclusiveness,  with 
disabilities  in  certain  cases, — all  of  which  was  seemingly  incon- 
sistent with  a  government  instituted  for  the  equal  benefit  of 
the  whole  people  and  their  successors. 

In  the  beginning,  orthodox  opinions,  a  good  reputation,  a 
frightful  oath  to  be  faithful,  and  an  affirmative  vote  of  the 
town  or  General  Court,  qualified  a  person,  in  one  case  to  be  an 
inhabitant  and  to  vote  for  deputies,  and  in  the  other,  to  be  a 
freeman  and  vote  for  magistrates  ;  but  ere  long  the  standard  of 
qualifications  was  raised,  for  good  reasons  as  I  surmise.  In 
February,  1657,  the  General  Court  declared  "that  by  admitted 
inhabitants,  in  the  seventh  fundamental  [law],  are  meant  only 
householders  that  are  one  and  twenty  years  of  age,  or  have 
borne  office,  or  have  thirty  pounds  estate."  Two  years  later 
(March,  1659),  soon  after  seventy  had  been  made  freemen  at 
one  session  of  the  Court,  and  sixty-five  at  another, — a  number 
largely  more  than  half  of  all  admitted  in  twenty-three  years 
under  the  Constitution — it  was  ordered  that  all  candidates  for 
that  distinction  should  "have  thirty  pounds  of  ^ro^er personal 
estate,  or  have  borne  office,"  "being  men  of  an  honest  and 
peaceable  conversation,"  as  evidenced  by  certificate  of  the  dep- 
uties. Later  still,  the  towns  were  required  to  observe  the 
"  honest-conversation  "  rule  in  admitting  inhabitants  (Col.  Rec, 
i,  290,  293,  331,  351). 

Probably  the  plantations,  at  this  time,  as  mentioned  on  a 
preceding  page,  were  suffering  from  an  irruption  of  unbidden 
and  disreputable  characters,  who  put  in  peril  the  institutions 
and  the  morals  of  the  Commonwealth ;  so  that  the  Court  to 
avert  impending  calamity  imposed  new  restrictions,  first  on  the 
towns,  then  on  itself,  when  conferring  the  political  franchise. 
Thus  the  semblance  of  the  universal  suffrage  to  which  the 
Constitution  gave  countenance  was  abruptly  removed  by  an  im- 
portant property  qualification.  Thirty  pounds  was  a  large 
amount  in  those  times,  especially  of  personal  property.  Judg- 
ing from  the  lists  of  persons  and  estates  at  a  little  later  period, 
I  conclude  that  the  average  taxable  property  belonging  to  each 
family  did  not  exceed  sixty  pounds,  nmch  or  most  of  it  land. 


24  EAKLY    GOVEKNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT. 

The  course  pursued  in  tliis  matter  seems  to  show  that  the  Gen- 
eral Court,  after  twenty  years'  experience,  was  looking  with 
favor  on  the  once  discarded  views  of  the  elder  Governor  Win- 
throp  as  given  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Hooker,  August,  1638.  He 
"  expostulated  about  the  unwarrantableness  and  unsafeness  of 
referring  matters  of  counsel  or  judicature  to  the  body  of  the 
people,  quia  the  best  part  is  always  the  least,  and  of  that  best 
part  the  wiser  is  always  the  lesser."  (Savage's  Winthrop,  ii,  428.) 

The  thirty-pound  qualification  required  of  tliose  who  would 
be  made  freemen,  seems  to  have  closed  the  door  to  the  class 
which  the  General  Court  wished  to  exclude.  I  cannot  find 
that  more  than  three  were  admitted  in  the  next  three  years  and 
a  half,  or  till  the  charter  went  into  operation.  Though  not 
democratic,  I  cannot  but  think  that  the  restriction,  under  the 
circumstances,  was  a  Wise  one. 

Should  the  Governor,  or  the  Governor  and  Magistrates,  prove 
false  to  their  masters,  the  freemen,  and  persistently  neglect  or 
refuse  to  summon,  as  directed,  either  of  the  standing  General 
Courts,  or  any  special  court  which  "  the  occasions  of  the  Com- 
monwealth required,"  the  freemen  might  order  the  constables 
to  give  the  necessary  notice,  and  w^hen  assembled,  said  court, 
"  consisting  of  the  major  part  of  the  freemen  then  present  or 
their  deputies,  with  a  moderator,"  was  declared  to  be  "the 
supreme  power  of  tlie  Commonwealtli."  Thus  constituted,  the 
General  Court  had  authority  to  make  and  repeal  laws,  levy 
taxes,  "admit  freemen,  dispose  of  lands  undisposed  of,  call 
either  court  or  magistrate  or  any  other  person  whatsoever  into 
question  for  misdemeanor,  and  for  just  causes  displace  or  deal 
otherwise"  with  them,  and  do  anything  "that  concerned  the 
good  of  this  Commonwealtli,"  except  alter  the  regulation  re- 
quiring the  magistrates  to  be  chosen  by  the  "whole  body  of 
the  freemen  " — provisions  which  extinguished  any  •  lingering 
hope,  on  the  part  of  the  delinquent  officials,  for  perpetual  office, 
or  hereditary  honors.  The  restriction  named  is  the  only  limit- 
ation to  the  power  of  "the  major  part  of  the  freemen  then 
present  or  their  deputies."  It  seems  to  have  been  made  under 
the  apprehension  that  the  freemen  of  the  future  might,  in  some 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         25 

terrible  crisis,  commit  political  suicide,  transferring  their  power 
and  privilege  to  unsafe  hands — to  some  heretic,  bishop,  prince, 
or  the  pope,  who  might  use  his  advantage  to  destroy  the  "  lib- 
erty, purity,  and  discipline  of  the  churches."  The  decree  giv- 
ing the  freemen  or  their  deputies  supreme  power  in  effect 
abolished,  in  the  contingency  contemplated,  the  existing  Con- 
stitution with  all  its  elaborate  machinery,  removed  the  remain- 
ing vestiges  of  town  independence,  and  crushed  beyond  recog- 
nition the  class  of  voters  known  as  admitted  inhabitants. 

In  the  preface  to  the  first  volume  of  Mr.  Day's  "  Connecticut 
Reports,"  the  reportei-,  writing  about  the  General  Court  insti- 
tuted in  1639,  proceeds  thus :  "  In  this  body  the  Constitution 
vested  the  supreme  jpoioer  of  the  covimonweaWi^  executive, 
legislative,  and  judicial."  Others  take  the  same  view,  but  as 
I  read  it,  the  document  referred  to  did  not,  formally,  invest 
with  supreme  power  the  ordinary  courts  convened  in  the  usual 
way,  but  declared  that  the  extraordinary  court  summoned  at 
the  instance  of  the  freemen,  and  consisting  of  "  the  major  part 
of  the  freemen  or  their  deputies"  only,  was  thus  invested.  At 
this  court  of  freemen,  or  of  deputies  representing  none  but 
freemen  (which  was  never  convened),  the  Governor  and  Magis- 
trates might  be  present  as  culprits  on  trial  for  misdemeanor, 
but  not  as  members.  Without  reserve,  the  Constitution  gave 
to  the  town-deputies,  in  making  laws,  etc.,  "the  whole  power 
of  the  towns ;"  but  as  rarely  as  possible  did  it  confer  power  of 
any  kind  when  the  magistrates  were  to  share  it.  Hence,  prob- 
ably, the  General  Court  as  a  whole,  convened  in  the  approved 
way,  was  not  pronounced  supreme.  We  should  not  know, 
from  the  wording  of  that  instrument,  that  the  magistracy  took 
any  part  in  the  legislative  proceedings,  were  it  not  for  the 
regulation  which  required  "that  every  General  Court,  except 
such  as  the  freemen  themselves  do  call,  shall  consist  of  the 
Governor,  or  some  one  chosen  to  moderate  the  Court,  and 
four  other  magistrates  at  least,  with  the  major  part  of  the 
deputies,"  etc.  As  I  view  it  this  regulation  was  an  after 
til  ought.  It  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  other  parts  of  the 
Constitution,  and  is  quite  inconsistent  with  Article  iifth,  which 
3 


26  EAELY   GOVERNMENT  .OF   CONNECTICUT. 

autliorizes  the  deputies  assembled  at  a  Court  of  Election,  after 
the  magistrates  had  been  chosen,  to  "  proceed  in  every  public 
service  as  at  other  courts."  The  other  courts  were  the  Sep- 
tember Courts  and  the  special  courts.  To  my  mind  the  evi- 
dence is  clear  that  the  authors  of  the  instrument  did  not 
intend,  till  the  work  was  finished,  to  give  the  magistrates  seats 
in  the  General  Court,  or  to  invest  them  with  any  legislative 
authority.  I  may  be  in  error,  but  this  is  my  conclusion  after 
many  perusals  and  careful  comparison. 

Throughout  the  Constitution  there  is  evidence  that  its  fram- 
ers  regarded  the  magistrates  with  jealousy  and  suspicion. 
They  feared  their  ambition,  and  were  resojved  to  restrain  it 
by  barriers  not  easily  surmounted.  Their  apprehensions  had 
been  awakened  by  their  experience  and  the  history  of  the 
times.  They  had  witnessed  the  struggle  in  Massachusetts 
between  the  aristocratic  and  republican  members  of  the  gov- 
ernment, the  magistrates  claiming,  under  the  charter,  more 
power  and  privilege  and  a  higher  rank  than  the  deputies  and 
freemen  were  willing  to  concede.  Matters  came  to  a  crisis 
when  a  "council  for  life"  was  instituted  and  a  hereditary 
nobility  proposed.  (Mass.  Col.  Rec,  i,  167.)  On  these  ques- 
tions, the  chief  men  of  Connecticut  were  on  the  popular  side, 
and  took  effectual  measures  to  circumscribe  patrician  ambition. 
A  governor  who  could  not  hold  office  more  than  one  year  in 
two,  and  who  had  no  power  to  adjourn  or  dissolve  the  Court, 
could  not  plot  successfully  for  reelection,  and  would  not  be  a 
very  dangerous  usurper.  If  he  and  the  magistrates  refused  to 
call  together  the  General  Court,  they  could  not  hope,  with 
profit,  to  imitate  the  memorable  example  of  Charles  I,  who, 
by  a  similar  device,  had  ruled  England  for  ten  years  by  his 
prerogative  right  alone.  Our  Puritan  ancestors  were  made  of 
the  same  sti^ff  as  their  brethren  who,  ten  years  later,  cut  off 
the  head  of  the  infatuated  king.  Whatever  their  faults,  they 
were  not  chicken-hearted,  not  over-much  given  to  delay  in 
dealing  with  criminals.  In  any  event,  they  were  determined 
to  have  a  government  of  their  own — one  that  would  do  their 
will,  preserve  the  Commonwealth,  and  protect  the  churches. 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         27 

The  people  honored  the  magistrates,  and  especially  the  Gov- 
ernor, for  they  represented,  not  the  people,  but  the  Common- 
wealth and  its  dignity.  They  had  faith  in  their  ability,  integ- 
rity, and  discretion ;  confided  to  them  the  administration  of 
justice ;  followed  their  leadership  in  opinion,  and  sought  their 
counsel  w^hen  in  doubt  and  difficulty ;  gave  them  the  highest 
seats  in  their  meeting-houses;  exempted  them  from  the  poll- 
tax,  and  those  minor  and  common-place  duties  which  tend  to 
debase  rank ;  provided  them  with  honorable  titles  ;  but  would 
not  trust  them  with  political  power.  As  members  of  the 
General  Court,  they  were  in  a  hopeless  minority.  The  depu- 
ties outnumbered  them,  not  in  the  judicially  approved  propor- 
tion of  ''  eight  to  seven,"  but  of  twelve  to  six,  the  Governor 
having  only  a  casting  vote.  The  disparity  could  be  increased 
at  will  when  new  towns  were  admitted.  The  deputies,  then, 
without  resorting  to  extreme  measures,  could  direct  the  whole 
course  of  legislation;  The  General  Court  which  they  con- 
trolled had,  practically,  no  master. 

That  they  might  qualify  themselves  to  discharge  intelli- 
gently their  weighty  duties,  the  deputies,  as  in  Massachusetts, 
had  "  liberty  to  appoint  a  time  and  place  of  meeting  before 
any  General  Court  to  advise  and  consult  of  all  such  things  as 
may  concern  the  good  of  the  public,  and  also  to  examine  their 
own  elections,"  and  determine  their  validity,  etc.  It  was 
probably  intended  by  this  preliminary  meeting  to  give  the 
popular  branch  of  the  Assembly  opportunity  to  organize,  har- 
monize, and  prepare  to  take  the  lead  in  legislation,  and  defeat 
the  machinations  of  self-seekers  "  born  to  rule."  Their  indis- 
pensable, ever-present  duty  was  to  watch  the  movements  of 
their  more  dignified  but  suspected  co-workers  in  the  govern- 
ment. 

A  cursory  examination  of  the  existing  Constitution  of  Con- 
necticut— that  of  1818 — shows  that  one  of  its  most  important 
ol)jects  is  the  protection  of  minorities,  or  the  weaker  party, 
majorities  having  power  to  protect  themselves.  The  first 
Article,  with  its  twenty-one  sections,  contains  the  Declaration 
of  Rights — rights  which  the  General  Asseml)ly  or  the  consti- 


28  EARLY   aOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT. 

tilted  goveriiinent  cannot  take  away  or  impair.  One  of  these 
strikes  at  the  root  of  an  old  and  sadly  notorious  evil.  It  reads 
thus :  "  N^o  preference  shall  be  ^iven  by  law  to  any  Christian 
sect  or  mode  of  worship."  In  the  earlier  instrument,  there  is 
no  declaration  of  rights.  There  were  prohibitions  and  limita- 
tions, but  these  were  generally  against  the  weaker  party.  The 
magistrates  were  fenced  in,  restricted  in  many  ways ;  but  the 
deputies,  or  the  General  Court  directed  by  them,  had  almost 
unbounded  power.  There  was  but  a  single  privilege  reserved 
to  the  chief  actors  in  the  convention — the  privilege  of  choosing 
deputies — and  this  might  be  gobbled  up  by  the  freemen,  in  a 
certain  contingency,  as  already  stated. 

The  different  departments  of  the  government,  as  now  known 
to  us,  were,  in  that  of  1639,  merged  in  one.  The  magistrates 
were  both  legislators  and  judges ;  and  so  were  the  deputies,  to 
a  limited  extent,  while  sitting  in  Court.  The  two  houses,  after- 
wards so  called,  were  not  independent  bodies,  each  with  a  veto 
on  the  legislation  of  the  other.  The  Governor  was  compounded 
of  dignity  and  shadow,  scarcely  having  a  separate,  substantial 
existence.  A  bill  on  its  way  to  the  statute-book  had  before  it 
the  perils  of  but  one  scrutiny,  one  ordeal ;  its  defects  had  but 
a  single  chance  for  detection  and  elimination.  The  several 
expedients  which  are  now  adopted  to  secure  thoughtful  consid- 
ation  and  the  needful  delay  were  not  in  use.  The  government 
was  well  enough  for  those  who  made  it.  They  constructed  it 
for  themselves  and  were  satisfied.  Always  it  served  well  the 
majority — those  who  controlled  its  administration.  For  the 
minority,  largely  interlopers,  it  is  true,  it  was  indeed  a  hard 
one.  So  long  as  the  people  were  of  one  mind,  one  faith,  one 
practice,  its  opponents  looking  on  at  a  safe  distance,  it  was 
guided  with  wisdom,  intelligence,  and  the  severest  impartiality  ; 
and  at  a  later  period,  when  divisions  and  dissensions  arose,  was 
more  tolerant  and  humane  than  those  with  which  it  has  been 
unfavorably  compared. 

The  Constitution  devised  a  way  for  practical  revolution,  if 
the  Governor  and  magistrates  were  unfaithful,  but  made  no 
provision  for  amendment.     If  the  power  to  amend  could  sur- 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT  OF   CONNECTICUT.  29 

vive  this  omission,  it  must,  I  think,  liave  resided  in  the  whole 
people — those  who  framed  and  adopted  that  instrument — if 
indeed  they  did  not  jmrt  with  it  irrevocably  in  convention. 
But  the  right  to  amend  was  assumed  by  the  freemen,  while 
changes  not  prohibited,  though  of  great  importance,  were  made 
at  pleasure  by  the  General  Court.  If  I  mistake  not,  the  Court 
considered  itself  authorized  to  do  anything  not  distinctly  for- 
bidden by  the  fundamental  law.  If  this  view  be  correct,  it 
had  by  right  nearly  absolute  power — power  which  might  be 
used  constitutionally,  for  the  most  despotic  purposes.  The 
voters  could  change  their  representatives  at  the  spring  or  spring 
and  fall  elections,  but  they  could  not,  perhaps  would  not  if 
they  could,  prevent  the  flagrant  abuse  of  power.  Civil,  like 
religious  liberty  was  recognized  as  belonging,  not  to  all,  but 
to  a  favored  major  part  of  all. 

One  brave  thing,  not  to  be  forgotten,  the  General  Court  at 
length  did,  which  had  the  efl^ect  of  limiting  its  own  powers 
and  protecting  the  minority.  The  unreasoning,  narrow-minded 
prejudice  against  the  magistrate  had  abated,  partly  perhaps  be- 
cause of  the  increasing  weakness  of  the  aristocratic  party  in 
England.  Following  the  example  of  the  wearied  and  recon- 
ciled factions  in  Massachusetts,  the  Court,  February  5,  1645, 
ordered  as  follows :  "  No  act  shall  pass  or  stand  for  a  law 
which  is  not  confirmed  both  by  the  major  part  of  the  magis- 
trates and  by  the  major  part  of  the  deputies  there  present  in 
Court,  both  magistrates  and  deputies  being  allowed,  either  of 
them,  a  negative  vote."  The  act  was  an  important  concession 
on  the  part  of  the  popular  majority,  and  must  have  contrib- 
uted much  to  prevent  unwise  and  hasty  legislation.  In  the 
making  of  laws  it  placed  the  two  rival  classes  of  members  on  a 
footing  of  equality,  and  it  could  not  be  repealed  without  the 
consent  of  both.  As  the  magistrates,  the  weaker  party,  would 
not,  unless  idiotically  or  corruptly,  permit  that,  it  had  the  elf ect 
of  a  fundamental  law  which  could  not  be  set  aside. 

As  I  understand  it,  the  Assembly  was  divided  for  the  pur- 
pose of  taking  votes  on  the  passage  of  laws  only,  and  not  for 
any  other  business.     The  members  continued  to  meet  as  one 


30         EAELY  GOVEENMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

body  in  the  same  chamber,  and  proceeded  with  their  discussions 
and  all  matters  of  business  as  before,  till  a  vote  was  taken 
(probably  by  tlie  erection  of  hands),  when  the  votes  were  clas- 
sified and  counted  according  to  law.  It  is  not  probable  that 
they  left  their  seats.  They  were  not  numerous,  numl)ering  at 
that  period  from  eight  to  eleven  magistrates,  and  from  nine  to 
fifteen  deputies. 

The  usually  vigilant  Dr.  Trumbull  seems  to  have  overlooked 
the  order  of  March,  1645,  giving  to  the.  magistrates  a  negative 
vote. 

At  the  first  session  after  the  charter  of  1662  went  into  opera- 
tion, the  General  Assembly  "  declared  that  all  tlie  laws  and 
•  orders"  of  the  previous  government  should  "stand  in  full 
force  and  virtue,  unless  any  be  cross  to  the  Charter,"  etc. 
This  action,  I  suppose,  continued  the  practice  required  by  the 
order  of  March,  1645,  till  the  session  of  October,  1698,  when 
the  Assembly  ordered  as  follows  : 

*' This  General  Assembly  shall  consist  of  two  houses;  the  first  shall 
consist  of  the  Governor,  or  in  his  absence,  of  the  Deputy  Governor,  and 
assistants,  which  shall  be  known  by  the  name  of  the  Upper  House  ;  the 
other  shall  consist  of  such  deputies  as  shall  be  legally  returned  from  the 
several  towns,  ....  which  shall  be  known  by  the  name  of  the  Lower 
House,  wherein  a  speaker  chosen  by  themselves  shall  preside  :  which 
houses  so  formed  shall  have  a  distinct  power  to  appoint  all  needful  offi- 
cers, and  to  make  such  rules  as  they  shall  severally  judge  necessary. 
....  And  no  act  shall  be  passed  into  a  law,  nor  any  law  already  en- 
acted be  repealed,  nor  any  other  act  proper  to  the  General  Assembly,  but 
by  the  consent  of  each  of  the  said  houses." 

The  government  established  by  the  Constitution  of  1639, 
acknowledged  the  validity  of  both  the  governments  which  pre- 
ceded it.  It  did  so,  not  formally,  so  far  as  appears,  but  by  rec- 
ognizing the  validity,  till  repealed,  of  tlie  laws  previously  exist- 
ing. The  town  organizations,  however,  were  dissolved.  They 
gave  up  all  they  had,  and  received  back  only  the  right  of  rep- 
resentation, and  that  limited.  But  at  the  first  October  Court, 
all  were  rehabilitated  and  richly  furnished,  though  not  as  inde- 
pendent bodies.  Their  sovereignty  had  evaporated  and  was 
lost  forever. 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  31 


Chapter  II. 

Laws  mold  tlie  character  and  life  of  a  people.  Laws,  too, 
are  called  into  existence  by  the  circumstances  and  wants  of  those 
w^ho  make  them.  Each  represents  a  quality  or  fact  of  human 
nature  which  cannot  be  effaced.  From  a  collection  of  the 
whole  may  be  obtained  a  tnie  conception  of  the  political  com- 
munity which  acknowledges  their  authority.  Place  a  bone  of 
an  unknown  animal  in  the  hands  of  a  comparative  anatomist, 
and  he  will  build  up  a  skeleton,  clothe  it  with  flesh,  and  in  a 
general  way  depict  its  mode  of  existence,  habits,  and  instincts. 
Much  more  of  the  outward  actual  life  may  be  deduced  from  the 
self-imposed  laws  of  an  isolated  people  just  beginning  political 
house-keeping.  Their  intellectual  and  moral  condition,  their 
opinions,  customs,  vices,  virtues,  their  progress  in  knowledge,  re- 
ligion, social  and  political  life,  may  be  inferred  from  their 
legislation.  If  men  are  credulous,  superstitious,  narrow-minded, 
intolerant,  quarrelsome,  or  corrupt,  their  own  laws  will  declare 
it.  These  laws,  enacted  in  great  variety,  are  a  mirror  in  which 
may  be  traced,  by  reflected  light,  the  venerated  lineaments  of 
the  fathers  of  Connecticut.  With  a  few  exceptions  at  the  outset, 
the  crimes  and  wi-ongs  which  from  time  to  time  they  prohibited, 
the  evil  practices  and  sins  of  every  grade  they  forbade,  were 
those  which  had  appeared  among  themselves.  Their  authentic 
history,  not  quite  complete,  'might,  I  think,  be  written  from 
their  enactments  alone.  From  among  these,  a  scattered  and 
somewhat  tangled  mass,  I  have  selected  for  comment  such  as 
would  best  illustrate  certain  leading  characteristics,  some  of 
which  have  been  misunderstood  or  misrepresented.  One  of  my 
special  aims  will  be  to  show,  as  truthfully  as  I  can,  how  nmcli 
liberty,  particularly  religious  liberty,  the  early  planters  per- 
mitted among  themselves,  and  how  much  they  allowed  to 
others. 

One  would  naturally  think  tliat  a  few  hundred  plain,  square- 
dealing,  hard-working  farmers,  leading  a  domestic  and  for  the 


323  EAKLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT. 

most  j)art  a  quiet,  unambitious  life — men  having  little  trade  and 
no  complicated  business  relations,  and  associated  chiefly  for 
religious  improvement  and  mutual  defense — would  not  need 
more  than  the  simplest  form  of  government  and  a  minimum 
supply  of  legislation.  But  the  General  Court  which  they  insti- 
tuted, and  to  which  they  surrendered  all  power,  temporal  and 
spiritual,  thought  differently. 

After  recovering  from  the  burdens  and  privations  which  the 
Pequot  war  made  necessary ,~thfi-Jcmonists  prosecuted  with  occa- 
sional interruption  the  important  work  which  they  had 
undertaken.  While  setting  up  churches  in  accordance  with 
their  convictions,  and  establishing  a  civil  government  for  their 
preservation  and  defense,  they  w^ere  not  the  men  to  neglect  their 
practical  and  material  interests.  So  soon  as  a  fruitful  soil,  with 
the  aid  of  imperfect  appliances,  could  be  brought  under  cultiva- 
tion, industry,  frugality,  and  good  management  secured  compar- 
ative abundance.  So  prosperous  did  they  become  that  extrav- 
agance and  fashion,  ridiculous  as  they  may  seem,  were  intro- 
duced. The  General  Court  was  alarmed.  Hoping  to  suppress 
a  dangerous  evil,  and  finding  that  a  previous  order  (not  re- 
corded), designed  to  restrain  "  excess  of  apparel,"  was  unheeded, 
"  divers  persons  of  several  ranks"  continuing  to  offend,  it  be- 
stirred itself.  As  early  as  April,  1641,  the  constables  of  the 
several  towns  were  directed  to  take  notice  of  any  whom 
they  "judged  to  exceed  their  condition  and  rank,"  and  to 
present  them  to  the  particular  court  for  "  censure,"  a  form 
of  punishment  more  dreaded  then  than  it  would  be  now. 
Probably  the  law  w^as  a  failure,  for  it  is  not  found  in  the  Code 
of  1650.  But  some  unrepealed  laws  of  prior  date  appear  to 
have  been  continued  in  force,  which  are  not  embraced  in  that 
collection. 

At  a  later  period,  in  the  beginning  of  the  Indian  w^ar  of  1675, 
the  General  Assembly,  hoping  to  win  Divine  favor  and  remove 
the  impediments  to  success,  passed  several  laws  aimed  at  the  more 
glaring  sins  of  the  time.  One  of  them  begins  thus  :  "Whereas 
excess  of  apparel  is  unbecoming  a  wilderness  condition  and  the 
profession  of  the  gospel,"  it  is  therefore  ordered  that  whoever 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  33 

"  shall  wear  gold  or  silver  lace,  or  gold  or  silver  buttons,  silk 
ribbons,  or  other  superfluous  trimmings,  or  any  bone  lace  above 
three  shillings  per  yard,  or  silk  scarfs,"  shall  be  set  in  the  lists 
of  estates  at  one  hundred  and  fifty  pounds,  on  which  sum  they 
shall  pay  rates ;  but  the  law  was  not  to  extend  to  magistrates 
or  like  public  oflScers,  nor  to  their  wives  and  children,  nor  to 
commissioned  military  ofiicers,  nor  ''  to  such  whose  quality  or 
estate  have  been  above  the  ordinary  degree  though  now  decayed." 
It  was  "  further  ordered  that  all  such  persons  as  shall  for  the 
future  make  or  wear  or  buy  any  apparel  exceeding  the  quality 
and  condition  of  their  persons  and  estates,  or  that  is  apparently 
beyond  the  necessary  end  of  apparel  for  covering  or  comeliness," 
should  forfeit  for  each  offense  ten  shillings. 

In  connection  with  a  similar  law,  high-stepping  Massachu- 
setts, by  its  General  Coart,  declared  its  ''utter  detestation  and 
dislike  that  men  or  women  of  mean  condition  should  take  upon 
them  the  garb  of  gentlemen,  by  wearing  gold  or  silver  lace  or 
buttons,  or  points  at  their  knees,  or  to  walk  in  great  boots," 
"leather  being  so  scarce,"  "  or  women  of  the  same  rank  to  wear 
silk  hoods  or  scarfs,  which,  though  allowable  to  persons  of  greater 
estates,  or  more  liberal  education,  we  judge  intolerable  in  per- 
sons of  such  like  condition,"  etc.     (Mass.  Eec,  iv.  Part  I,  60.) 

The  Connecticut  Assembly  further  ordered  that  the  prices  of 
provisions  should  be  fixed  at  each  session  of  that  body,  "  accord- 
ing to  true  intelligence  from  Boston,"  and  to  prevent  "  oppres- 
sion," merchants  and  traders  were  not  to  take  more  than  two- 
pence in  the  shilling  for  "profit,  charge,  and  venture,"  for 
goods  bought  with  "  ready  money  "  in  Boston,  or  other  like 
market,  the  penalty  being  treble  that  of  the  unlawful  exaction. 
(Manuscript  copy  of  the  laws  in  the  Library  of  Yale  College.) 

As  suggested,  several  other  ref onnatory  •acts  were  passed  at 
the  May  session,  1676.  One,  to  prevent  profaning  the  Sab- 
bath, "  rooting  out  the  power  of  godliness,"  required  that  any 
person  "  found  sporting  in  the  streets  or  fields  on  Saturday 
night,  or  on  the  Lord's  day  night,  though  after  sunset,"  should, 
on  conviction,  pay  a  fine  of  five  shillings,  or  suffer  corporal 
punishment.     Another  forbade  "  profane  discourse  or  talk,  or 


34         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

rude  or  irreverent  behavior,"  or  servile  work,  except  works  of 
piety,  cliarity,  or  necessity,  "  on  that  holy  day."  Another 
recommended  that  the  ministers  and  selectmen  should  "look 
into  the  state  of  families,"  and  ascertain  whether  "  reading  of 
the  Scriptures,  catechizing  of  the  children,  and  daily  prayer 
with  the  giving  of  thanks  by  every  Christian  family,  were 
conscientiously  attended  to,"  "  the  neglect  of  which  is  a  great 
sin,  provoking  God  to  pour  forth  his  wrath  on  such  families." 
If  "  any  heads  of  families  were  obstinate  or  refractory,  or 
would  not  be  reformed,  they  must  be  presented  by  the  grand 
jury  to  the  county  court  to  be  fined,  or  punished,  or  bound  to 
good  behavior,"  etc.  Another  required  that  disorderly  "  young 
persons  who  got  from  under  the  government  of  parents  or 
masters  before  they  were  able  to  govern  themselves"  should 
"  carefully  attend  the  worship  of  God  in  the  families  in  which 
they  were  boarders  or  sojourners,  be  subject  to  the  family 
government,  and  at  all  times  be  ready  to  give  an  account  of 
their  actions,  or  forfeit  five  shillings  for  every  breach  of  the 
order."  Other  laws  were  provided  for  other  classes  of 
offenders. 

It  was  a  critical  period  in  the  history  of  New  England,  and 
impending  dangers  explain  these  vigorous  assaults  on  notable 
and  prevalent  sins.  The  war  with  King  Philip  and  his  con- 
federates, now  skilled  in  the  use  of  fire  arms,  was  a  desperate 
one,  and  threatened  the  extinction  of  this  branch  of  the  Eng- 
lish family.  So  great  was  the  need  of  help  that  all  male  per- 
sons between  the  ages  of  fourteen  and  seventy  were  forbidden 
to  leave  the  Colony  without  a  license.  The  penalty  was  one 
hundred  pounds. 

Our  fathers  were  accustomed  to  think  that  all  public  calam- 
ities— war,  pestilence,  shipwreck,  mildews,  blasting  of  the 
crops,  devastating  storms,  unseasonable  weather,  dissension  in 
the  churches,  etc. — were  -chastisements  for  neglected  duty  or 
sinful  indulgence,  and  that  the  divine  wrath  nmst  be  turned 
aside  by  repentance,  humiliation,  fasting,  prayer,  and  an 
amended  life.  Hence  the  reformatory  law-making  which  has 
been  noticed.     The  Court's  endeavors  produced  little  effect, 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         35 

and  as  "  abounding  sin  jet  remained,"  the  elders  and  ministers, 
the  next  year,  were  again  desired  "  to  stir  up  and  awaken  their 
several  congregations  to  the  duty  of  repentance  and  reforma- 
tion." 

From  tlie  beginning,  I  am  grieved  to  say,  our  ancestors  used 
tobacco.  The  farmers  raised  it,  and  naturally  enough  wanted 
*' protection  for  home  industry."  The  General  Court  was 
beneficently  inclined,  and  as  usual  looked  round  for  somebody 
who  should  be  lined.  The  sufferers  were  any  persons  who, 
without  license,  should  "drink*  (that  is,  inhale  or  smoke) 
any  other  tobacco  but  such  as  is  or  shall  be  planted  within 
these  liberties."  The  penalty  was  five  shillings  for  each 
pound  consumed  after  September,  1641.  (Conn.  Col.  Rec,  i, 
53.)  In  January,  1647,"  the  order  was  repealed,  and  in  May 
following  another  passed,  indicating  a  change  of  mind.  The  last 
was  aimed  at  an  abuse  to  be  cured  by  other  fines.  By  its  terms, 
no  person  under  twenty  years  of  age  was  allowed  to  use  the 
weed,  nor  were  others,  not  accustomed  to  it,  permitted  to  take 
it  without  a  license  from  the  Court  and  a  certificate  from 
some  one  skilled  in  physic  alleging  his  need  of  it ;  while  those 
accustomed  to  it  were  forbidden  to  take  it  in  the  streets,  or 
fields,  or  woods,  except  when  traveling  or  journeying  at  least 
ten  miles,  and  then  only  at  "  dynner,"  or  at  most  not  more 
than  once  a  day,  and  not  in  the  company  of  another.  Nor  was 
any  one,  in  any  house  in  the  town  in  which  he  lived,  allowed 
to  use  it  "  in  the  company  of  more  than  one  other  who  useth 
and  drinketh  the  same  weed  at  that  time."  The  penalty  was 
sixpence  for  each  offense,  to  be  paid  without  gainsaying. 
The  constables  were  charged  to  look  after  the  guilty,  and  make 
presentment.  With  but  little  modification,  the  tobacco  law  of 
1647  was  continued  in  the  Code  of  1650. 

That  their  institutions  might  be  perpetuated,  our  fathers 
began  at  the  beginning,  and  provided  for  the  training  of  the 
children.  To  circumvent  tliat  "old  deluder,  sathan,"  who 
would  "  keep  men  from  the  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures,"  the 

*Says  Mr.  J.  H.  Trumbull,  good  authority:  "The  viler  practice  of 
chewing  was  not  yet  iutroduced."    Blue  Laws,  p.  135. 


36         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

Court  ordered  that  every  town  of  fifty  householders  should 
employ  some  one  to  teach  the  children  to  read  and  write, 
whose  wages  should  be  paid  by  parents  and  masters,  or  by  the 
town,  as  the  selectmen  should  determine.  Towns  of  one  hun- 
dred families  were  directed  each  to  set  up  a  grammar  school 
where  youth  might  be  fitted  for  the  university  (at  Cambridge). 
Another  order  required  that  "all  masters  of  families  should 
once  a  week  at  least  catechize  their  children  and  servants  in 
the  grounds  and  principles  of  religion,"  or  if  unable  to  do 
that,  cause  them  to  learn  some  short  orthodox  catechism  so  as 
to  answer  questions  propounded,  etc.  That  the  law  might  not 
fail,  the  selectmen  were  commanded  to  "  have  a  vigilant  eye 
over  their  brethren  and  neighbors,"  and  to  see  that  the  law 
was  obeyed.  The  penalty  for  neglect  on  their  part  was 
twenty  shillings.     (Conn.  Col.  Rec,  i,  520,  654.) 

Naturally  enough,  young  men,  the  hope  of  the  church  and 
commonwealth,  and  too  often  a  vexation  to  their  friends,  were 
regarded  with  solicitude  and  even  susj^icion.  Like  their  suc- 
cessors, they  were  often  irreverent,  wayward,  and  unruly. 
They  escaped  from  parental  control,  were  indecently  tardy  in 
choosing  their  mates  (marrying),  and  sometimes  contracted  vi- 
cious habits.  Assuming  the  vacated  office  of  parent,  guardian, 
and  master,  the  government  (for  their  edification  and  as  a  re- 
minder of  neglected  duty)  passed  a  stringent  law,  first  in  Feb., 
1637,  which.  Dr.  Stiles  says,  was  executed  in  Windsor.  Appar- 
ently, it  was  designed  for  youth  without  rank  or  position  in 
society,  and  therefore  without  right  to  special  privileges.  It 
forbade  any  unmarried  "  yonge  man,"  having  no  servant  and 
holding  no  office,  to  "  keep  house  by  himself,  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  town  where  he  lived,  under  pain  of  twenty  shillings 
per  week."  The  like  penalty  was  incurred  by  the  master  of  any 
family  who  took  him  in  and  entertained  him  as  a  sojourner. 
In  1702  (see  the  revision  of  that  date),  the  master  was  not 
fined,  but  the  erring  youth  whom  he  sheltered  was  required  to 
attend  the  family  worship,  and  submit  to  family  government, 
or  forfeit  five  shillings  for  each  offense. 

In  addition   to  this  hard   treatment,  to  help  suppress   his 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         87 

exuberance,  he  was  compelled,  at  sixteen,  to  take  the  oath  of 
iidelity,  perform  military  duty,  pay  a  burdensome  poll-tax,  and 
forego  the  privileges  of  a  freeman  till  twenty-one  years  of  age. 
Not  till  1821  was  the  luckless  bachelor  set  at  liberty,  and 
allowed  to  do  as  others  might. 

The  idea  embodied  in  the  foregoing  law  seetns  to  have  been 
taken  from  a  Massachusetts  order  passed  in  1636. 

The  detestation  with  wliich  our  fathers  regarded  the  sin  of 
gaming  was  naturally  enough  extended  to  its  symbols.  Desir- 
ous that  the  people  should  know  what  games  were  "  altogether 
unlawful,  in  the  very  nature  of  them,"  the  General  Court, 
February,  1657,  "ordered  that  if  any  person  or  persons,  of 
what  rank  or  quality  soever  in  this  jurisdiction,  shall,  after  the 
publishing  of  this  order,  play  at  cards,  dice,  tables  [backgam- 
mon], or  any  other  game  wherein  that  great  and  solenm 
ordinance  of  a  Lot  is  expressly  and  directly  abused  and  pro- 
phaned,  the  persons  playing,  or  that  shall  play,  more  or  less,  at 
any  of  the  aforesaid  games,  shall  pay  for  every  offense  twenty 
shillings  apiece  to  the  public  treasury,  and  the  head  of  that 
family  where  any  such  game  shall  be  used  or  played  (if  he  or 
she  know  of  or  allow  any  such  playing  in  their  house  or  houses) 
shall  pay  in  like  manner  twenty  shillings  for  each  time  any 
such  game  is  played  in  part  or  whole."  If  the  playing  were 
witliout  the  knowledge  of  the  head  of  the  family,  the  "  games- 
ters or  players"  were  to  pay  both  the  fines,  or  forty  shillings, 
for  each  game,  one-third  to  go  to  the  informer. 

This  law,  without  important  change,  is  found  in  the  Revision 
of  1808.  A  penalty  of  seven  dollars  had  been  added  in  1784 
for  every  pack  of  cards  sold  or  kept  for  sale.  The  boys,  not- 
withstanding, got  hold  of  them  and  played  "  old  sledge"  with 
zest,  in  the  greatest  possible  privacy.  The  act  did  not  survive 
the  Revision  of  1821. 

Lying  was  jnstly  considered  a  "fowle  and  gross  sin,  .... 
some  sorts  not  only  sinful,  but  pernicious."  According  to  the 
record,  it  was  beginning  ''to  be  practiced  by  many  persons  in 
the  commonwealth"  as  early  as  February,  1641.  I  fear  it 
began  earlier,  but  at  that  date  a  committee  was  appointed  "  to 


38  EAHLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT. 

consult  witli  the  elders  of  both  plantations  to  prepare  instruc- 
tions," etc.  A  temporary  order  against  the  sin  was  passed  in 
September,  1641.  It  authorized  the  particular  court  to  punish 
by  fine  or  corporally,  at  discretion.  In  the  code  of  1650  the 
Massachusetts  act  of  1645  was  copied.  It  provided  that  any 
person  of  fourteen  years  of  age  and  over  who  should  wittingly 
lie  to  the  injury  of  another  should  pay  a  tine  of  ten  shillings, 
or,  if  he  could  not  pay,  be  set  in  the  stocks,  in  some  public 
place,  not  exceeding  three  hours.  For  the  second  offense,  the 
penalty  was  twenty  shillings,  or  whipping  not  more  than 
twenty  stripes ;  for  the  third  offense,  forty  shillings,  or  more 
stripes,  not  exceeding  thirty.  Thereafter,  if  the  lying  were 
repeated,  the  offender,  man  or  woman,  must,  on  each  convic- 
tion, pay  an  additional  tine  of  ten  shillings,  or  receive  "  five  or 
six  more  stripes  than  formerly,  not  over  forty  at  any  one  time." 
If  children  under  fourteen  sinned  in  the  same  way,  they  were 
to  be  duly  corrected  by  their  parents  or  masters,  in  the  presence 
of  some  public  officer  (if  the  magistrate  so  decided),  who  would 
see  that  the  work  was  j)roperly  done.  (Conn.  Col.  Hec,  i,  538.) 
The  sort  of  work,  in  another  direction,  which  the  General 
Court  thought  itself  called  on  to  do,  without  questioning  its 
own  competency,  may  be  illustrated  by  an  example.  In  Feb- 
ruary, 1641,  the  law-makers,  finding  the  soil  would  produce 
hemp  and  flax,  much  needed  for  their  own  uses,  ordered 
"every  particular  family  to  procure  and  plant  this  present 
year  at  least  one  spoonful  of  English  hemp  seed,  in  some 
fruitful  soil,  at  least  one  foot  distant  betwixt  every  seed,  the 
same  to  be  preserved  and  kept  for  supply  of  seed  for  another 
year."  It  also  ordered  that  "every  family  that  kept  a  team 
should  sow  the  second  year  at  least  one  rood  of  hemp  or  flax ; 
and  every  person  that  kept  cows,  heifers,  or  steers  was  to  sow 
twenty  perches;  and  every  family  without  cattle  to  sow  ten 
perches."  When  the  planting  season  arrived,  it  was  found 
that  there  was  not  enough  hemp  seed  to  go  round;  so  the 
Court  ordered  that  those  who  had  more  tlian  a  spoonful,  and 
would  not  sell  at  a  reasonable  rate,  should  themselves  plant 
their  surplus  spoonfuls.     Those  who  disobeyed  were  to  "un- 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT  OF   CONNECTICUT.  39 

derfi^o  the  censure  of  tlie  Court."  An  offender  under  this 
hemp  seed  law,  standing  with  bowed  head  and  trembHng 
limbs  before  the  waiting  dignitaries  of  the  Court,  and  receiving 
stinging  censure  from  the  lips  of  the  "  worshipful  Governor," 
would  be  a  good  subject  for  a  painter. 

Any  form  of  good  or  evil,  which  was  in  any  way  dependent 
on  human  conduct,  oiir  ancestors  thought  a  proper  subject  for 
legislation.  If  the  wages  of  labor  or  the  prices  of  commodi- 
ties w^ere,  in  their  opinion,  too  high,  it  was  assumed  that  they 
could  and  should  be  reduced  by  law.  Like  many  of  our  day, 
the  people  had  little  faith  in  free-trade,  and  would  not  wait  for 
the  equahzing  effects  of  competition.  They  did  not  believe 
that  a  good  could  be  attained  or  an  evil  eliminated  by  the 
natural  and  free  working  of  self-interest.  To  get  out  of  him 
the  best  results,  a  man  must'  be  goaded  on  by  the  fear  of 
punishment.  If  he  claimed  the  right  to  do  as  he  would  with 
his  own — to  dispose  of  his  goods  or  services  for  more  than 
public  opinion  considered  them  worth,  he  was  the  enemy  of 
the  people,  and  must  submit  to  the  dictation  of  the  General 
Court.  The  law-makers  seemed  not  to  know  that  the  course 
pursued  tended  to  reduce  the  supply  of  the  things  desired 
when  greater  abundance  alone  could  secure  the  coveted  cheap- 
ness. We  may  think  them  ignorant,  but  they  were  not  more 
so  than  their  contemporaries,  and  were  quite  as  wise  as  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  which,  a  few  years  ago,  attempted 
to  check  the  rising  premium  on  gold  by  legislative  penalties. 

Then,  as  now,  there  were  extortioners  and  oppressors — men 
of  sordid  natures  who  took  an  unfair  advantage  of  their  more 
needy  brethren.  IS^owhere  is  there  honesty,  religion,  or  con- 
science enough  to  prevent  those  w^ho  have  a  monopoly  from 
using  it  selfishly,  in  some  cases  wickedly.  At  an  early  period, 
there  were  but  few  skilled  workmen  in  the  colony.  When 
there  was  more  work  than  they  could  well  perform — a  greater 
demand  than  supply — they  would  not  sell  their  indispensable 
services  except  at  high  rates.  It  is  not  probable  there  were 
combinations  or  strikes ;  these  are  modern  inventions.  The 
General  Court,  fixing  its  attention  on  the  swollen  wage-rate, 


40  EARLY   GOVERI^MENT   OF   CONNECTICUT. 

undertook  to  apply  the  legislative  panacea.  At  an  early 
period,  having  the  example  of  Massachusetts,  it  passed  an  act 
regulating  the  work  and  wages  of  laborers  and  artificers,  which, 
in  June,  1640,  was  continued  "  during  the  pleasure  of  the 
Court."  In  February  following  the  order  was  ''  dissolved,"  as 
the  record  says,  perhaps  because  it  was  not  needed  in  the  win- 
ter season.     (Conn.  Col.  Rec,  i,  52,  61.)  • 

Four  months  later,  June,  1641,  the  Court,  having  waited  for 
reformation,  "  hoping  men  would  have  been  a  law  to  them- 
selves," again  interfered.  The  act  passed  shows  how  the 
planters  were  engaged,  and  what  classes  of  workmen  were  in 
most  request.  They  were  building  houses  and  bams  for 
shelter,  making  and  repairing  implements  of  wood  and  iron 
for  agriculture  and  war,  providing  casks  for  pork,  beef,  home- 
brewed ale,  and  tar,  and  pipe  'staves  for  exportation.  It  will 
be  observed  that  there  w^ere  as  yet  no  tailors  (or  none  named) ; 
no  hatters,  barbers,  dressmakers,  or  milliners  of  either  sex. 
The  act  provided  that  "  sufficient  and  able  carpenters,  plow- 
wrights,  w^heel-wrights,  masons,  joiners,  smiths,  and  coopers 
should  not  take  above  twenty  pence  for  a  day's  work  from  the 
tenth  of  March  to  the  tenth  of  October,  nor  above  eighteen 
pence  for  the  other  part  of  the  year,  they  to  work  eleven  hours 
in  summer,  and  nine  hours  in  winter."  Mowers  might  receive 
twenty  pence  a  day ;  other  artificers,  handicraftsmen,  and 
chief  laborers,  not  more  than  eighteen  pence  a  day  in  summer, 
and  fourteen  in  winter.  For  "  f ower  of  the  better  sorte  of 
oxen  or  horses,  with  the  tacklin,"  four  shillings  and  ten  pence 
a  day  might  be  taken  from  March  to  October,  and  four  shil- 
lings for  the  rest  of  the  year.  Six  hours  were  to  be  reckoned 
a  day's  work  from  March  to  May,  eight  from  May  to  October, 
and  six  from  October  to  March.  Any  person  giving  or  taking 
greater  wages  for  men  or  cattle  than  here  allowed  was  to 
"  abyde  the  censure  of  the  Court." 

In  March,  1650,  these  regulations,  and  also  those  establishing 
the  prices  of  corn,  were  repealed  ;  but  when  no  agreement  was 
made,  a  former  order  which  valued  wheat  at  four  shillings, 
rye  and  pease  each  at  three  shillings,  and  Indian  corn  at  two 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT  OF   CONNECTICUT.  41 

shillings  and  sixpence,  per  busliel,  continued  in  force.  At 
about  these  rates — which  were,  say,  one-third  higher  than  the 
specie  rates — the  articles  named  were  used  as  the  common  cur- 
rency. They  were  also  received  for  taxes,  pla(3ed  in  store- 
houses, and  paid  out  again  to  the  public  creditors. 

If  we  examine  the  above  figures  carefully  in  order  to  com- 
pare old  times  with  the  new,  we  shall  find  that  a  skilled  work- 
man, in  1641  and  afterward,  could  earn  wages  enough  in  one 
day  of  ten  hours  to  buy  one-third  of  a  bushel  of  wheat,  one- 
half  a  bushel  of  rye  or  pease,  six-tenths  of  a  bushel  of  Indian 
corn.  To-day  a  skilled  laborer  working  ten  hours  for  two  dol- 
lars will  receive  sufficient  to  purchase  at  present  prices,  in 
'New  York,  one  bushel  and  two-fifths  of  wheat,  two  and  a  half 
of  rye,  and  three  and  a  half  of  Indian  corn.  These,  the  last  men- 
tioned ranking  iirst  and  the  first  last,  with  the  products  of  the 
dairy,  were  the  most  important  articles  of  food  two  hundred 
and  forty  years  ago,  and  long  afterward.  They  afforded 
abundant  nutriment  for  a  laborious,  hardy,  prosperous,  and 
])rolific  people,  among  whom  poverty  was  rare,  and  begging 
unknown ;  and  yet  their  successors,  getting  from  four  to  six 
times  as  nmch,  often  complain  that  the  times  are  hard,  and 
they  can  scarcely  live.  A  day's  work  at  one  dollar  w^ill  now 
procure  nearly  two-thirds  of  a  bushel  of  wheat,  a  busliel  and 
one-eighth  of  rye,  and  a  bushel  and  three-quarters  of  corn.  If 
we  measure  the  wages  at  the  two  periods  by  the  clothing  they 
would  purchase,  the  contrast  will  be  still  more  striking. 

Figures  scarcely  less  instructive  may  be  obtained  by  compar- 
ing the  maximum  salaries  paid  to  ministers,  soon  after  the 
settlement  of  Connecticut,  with  the  maximum  paid  now.  At 
the  former  period  the  highest  was  about  one  hundred  pounds 
in  sterling  money,  or  four  hundred  and  forty-four  dollars,  and 
the  lowest  fifty  pounds,  sterling.  It  should  be  observed,  how- 
ever, that  the  minister  had  the  use  of  lands  set  apart  in  the  be- 
ginning for  his  improvement,  and  a  share  in  the  common  lands. 
A  house,  too,  was  usually  built  for   him  on   his   settlement. 

In  1662  Massachusetts,  without  the  shadow  of  authority,  set 
np  a  mint.     Thence  came  the  famous  Bay  or  pine-tree  shilling, 


42         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

short  ill  weight  to  the  extent  of  twenty-five  per  cent.  This  at 
length  filled  the  channels  of  circulation,  driving  away  other 
and  better  coin.  It  obtained  a  currency  in  Connecticut,  and 
about  1680  became  the  standard  of  value.  As  a  measure  it  took 
the  place  of  the  English  shilling.  Twenty  of  them  made  the 
New  England  pound,  worth  three  dollars  and  thirty-three 
cents,  instead  of  four  forty-four.  .  Thus,  the  hundred  pounds 
salary  became  equal  to  three  hundred  and  thirty-three  dollars 
and  thirty-three  cents,  and  the  dollar  equal  to  six  shillings 
instead  of  four  and  sixpence  as  previously.  When  the  still 
greater  swindle  of  irredeemable  paper  money  was  introduced 
by  Massachusetts,  in  1690  (Connecticut  following  the  example 
in  1710),  the  pound  was  further  depreciated,  as  the  paper 
issues  increased,  till  it  had  a  value  in  1754  of  not  more  than 
one  and  sixpence.  Those  who  write  or  read  'New  England 
history  should  remember  the  uncertain  character  of  the  money 
in  use.  Dr.  Trumbull  forgets  it,  and  so  does  Dr.  Palfrey.  The 
latter's  ancestor,  William  Palfrey,  in  1745,  bought  a  pound  of  tea, 
paying  thirty  shillings.  The  price  seemed  extravagant,  and  as  the 
purchaser  was  frugal  in  his  habits.  Dr.  Palfrey,  for  the  most  part 
a  careful  historian,  thoroughly  equipped  for  his  work,  concludes 
that  the  tea  was  obtained  for  sickness !  (History,  ii,  66.)  Thirty 
shillings  was  then  worth  a  little  over  a  dollar  in  our  money. 

The  increased  reward  which  the  laborer  of  to-day  receives 
represents  the  conveniences  and  luxuries  which  he  can  com- 
mand in  excess  of  those  enjoyed  by  his  predecessors.  All  this 
excess  is  due  to  accumulated  capital  employed  productively, 
and  the  discoveries  and  improvements  which  capital  makes 
possible.  Trade,  science,  literature,  art,  invention,  and  trained 
skill  are  called  into  existence  by  capital,  and  would  soon  perish 
without  it.  Those  who  spend  it  in  riotous  living,  sink  it  in 
unprofitable  enterprises,  or  waste  it  in  other  ways,  are  the 
enemies  of  those  who  have  none  of  their  own,  and  live  on  wages. 
The  want  of  capital,  in  early  times,  made  it  needful  that  all  of 
suitable  age,  men,  women,  and  children,  should  be  manual 
laborers,  and  all  producers  of  what  are  called  the  necessaries 
of  life.     On  no  other  condition  could  a  family  be  supported. 


EARLY    GOVERNMENT  01"  CONNECTICUT.  43 

Tlie  specimens  given  are  not  unfair  examples  of  a  part  of  the 
legislation  whicli  was  common  in  Connecticut  and  elsewhere 
in  the  seventeenth  century.  Naturally  the  people  modeled 
their  laws  somewhat  after  the  fonns  which  had  been  approved 
and  adopted  in  Massachusetts — forms  which,  to  some  extent, 
were  probably  the  result  of  their  own  deliberations  before  re- 
moval. Haynes,  Ludlow,  and  Hooker,  the  ruling  spirits  in  the 
new  settlements,  were  among  the  leaders  in  the  older  Colony. 
They  reproduced  in  one  place  what  they  and  others  had  pro- 
duced in  another,  making  such  changes  as  observation  and  the 
altered  circumstances  required.  Their  Constitution  proves  that 
they  were  not  slavish  imitators.  It  is  true  that  twelve  out  of 
their  fourteen  capital  laws  were  copied,  verbatim,  from  the 
(yode  of  Massachusetts,  but  the  law-givers  of  Massachusetts,  with- 
out fault  or  discrimination,  themselves  copied  from  the  books 
of  Moses.  As  a  borrower,  Connecticut  usually  acted  with 
judgment  and  discretion,  taking  not  all  that  was  offered,  but 
selecting  whatever  seemed,  under  the  circumstances,  fittest  and 
best.  It  made  mistakes,  however,  some  bad  ones,  as  it  still 
does. 

Conformably  to  the  custom  of  the  times,  Connecticut  legisla- 
tion was  minute,  often  trivial,  capricious,  and  most  of  it  of  the 
kind  called  special.  It  was  crude,  confused,  in  many  cases  ill- 
adapted  to  the  end  sought,  and  too  rarely  governed  by  any 
well-settled  principles.  Inquisitive,  often  inquisitorial  and  op- 
pressive, it  invaded  personal  rights,  and  pushed  its  way  into 
private  business  and  the  family  circle,  pursuing  and  annoying 
where  it  could  not  overtake.  Impotently,  it  strived  to  control 
conduct  which  could  never  be  known,  which  was  beyond  its 
proper  jurisdiction,  and  with  which  interference  was  unwar- 
ranted intrusion.  It  did  much  that  was  unwise,  and  vainly 
attempted  to  do  more.  In  all  directions  and  at  every  turn  the 
hapless  individual  was  opj^osed  by  vexatious  laws.  If  heeded, 
they  were  enough  to  worry  the  life  out  of  him.  With  less 
than  the  usual  exaggeration,  it  may  be  said  that  the  people  had 
no  rights  which  their  rulers  felt  bound  to  respect.  The  blind 
led   not  the  blind,  but  those  who  saw — saw  clearly,  perhaps. 


44  EARLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT. 

when  their  guides  stumbled  and  blundered.  Tf  by  a  free  gov- 
ernment is  meant  one  which  permits  and  guarantees  as  much 
liberty  as  is  consistent  with  order  and  the  equal  liberty  of  all, 
that  of  early  Connecticut,  though  democratic,  was  not  free. 
Yet  it  probably  secured  as  large  a  share  of  that  vaunted  and 
exhilarating  element  as  any  then  in  existence.  Perhaps  I 
should  except  Rhode  Island,  but  my  impression  is  that  Roger 
Williams  and  his  associates  had  more  liberty  than  they  could 
appropriate  or  utilize,  and  more  than  was  compatible  with  an 
orderly  and  efficient  government.  Connecticut  did  not  lack 
efficiency;  but,  to  alarm  and  deter  offenders,  it  sometimes  made 
laws  which  it  did  not  intend  or  attempt  to  execute — an  unwar- 
rantable proceeding.  At  a  later  period,  in  a  time  of  peril  and 
apprehension,  when  impending  judgments  must  be  looked  for, 
the  ministers  and  pious  people  pointed  to  "neglect  in  putting 
into  execution  good  laws  against  immoral  offenders,''  as  one  of 
the  "  crying  sins  "  of  the  day.  To  cure  the  evil,  the  Assembly, 
May,  1704,  in  the  midst  of  a  French  and  Indian  war,  ordered 
that  "in  every  county  a  sober,  discreet,  and  religious  person 
should  be  appointed  by  the  County  Court  to  be  attorney  for 
the  Queen,  to  prosecute  and  implead  in  the  law  all  criminal 
offenders,"  while  the  ministers  were  directed  to  stir  up  the 
people  to  endeavor  a  reformation. 

When  it  was  found  that  the  law  of  Moses  was  better  fitted 
for  the  ancient  Jews  than  for  the  English  planters  in  the  wilds 
of  Connecticut,  some  improvement  took  place ;  but  the  courts 
of  justice,  floundering  in  the  dark,  always  exercised  a  large  dis- 
cretion. In  most  cases,  no  doubt,  substantial  justice  was  done, 
but  not  in  a  very  scientific  way.  Setting  aside  the  common 
law  of  England,  and  ignoring  precedents,  the  law-givers,  in 
their  novel  situation  and  lack  of  experience,  had  no  guides  but 
common  sense  in  limited  sup23ly,  and  the  dim,  divine  light 
from  above.  The  deputies  who  controlled  or  might  control 
legislation,  were,  for  the  most  part,  plain,  hard-working  farm- 
ers of  good  natural  endowments,  whose  special  training  and 
course  of  thought  had  not  fitted  them  for  legislative  duties. 
Their  whole  time,  not  needed  for  Bible  reading  and  religious 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         45 

exercises,  was  required  for  the  tilling  of  their  farms  and  the 
support  of  their  wives  and  children.  With  these  disadvantages 
they  became  members  of  the  General  Court,  and  for  the  first 
time,  perhaps,  were  clothed  with  political  power.  Usually 
they  did  not  hold  ofiice  long  enough  to  become  familiar  with 
its  duties.  With  their  new  responsibilities  they  must  often 
have  felt  embarrassed;  but  they  did  not  hesitate  on  that 
account  to  do  business,  and  to  xio  it  with  a  purpose.  Like 
others,  seemingly,  they  found  pleasure  in  the  exercise  of  un- 
limited authority,  and  at  the  same  time  had  unbounded  confi- 
dence in  the  sufficiency  of  law.  IS^or  did  they  believe  in  the 
captivating  dogma  that  the  world  is  governed  too  much.  Their 
own  liberty,  so  much  prized,  they  hoped  to  preserve  by  illiberal 
restriction  and  coercion.  Having  the  views  and  qualifications 
mentioned,  it  is  not  strange  that  their  enactments  were  marked 
by  the  characteristics  named. 

Though  given  to  law-making  and  fond  of  laws,  the  early 
planters  were  suspicious  of  lawyers.  The  G-eneral  Court 
would  not  allow  them  to  plead  as  attorneys  in  behalf  of  those 
accused  of  delinquency.  The  order  was  disregarded,  and  in 
May,  1667,  the  Court  enacted  that  any  person  who  should  have 
the  boldness  "  to  plead  or  speak  in  behalf  of  one  on  trial  for 
delinquency  (except  with  leave  and  on  a  matter  of  law),  should 
pay  ten  shillings,  or  sit  in  the  stocks  one  hour  for  each  offense." 
If  good  lawyers  had  been  .encouraged,  I  think  the  laws  would 
have  been  fewer  and  vastly  better. 

Medical  men  were  licensed  by  the  General  Court.  Several 
of  the  clergy  were  distinguished  surgeons  and  physicians, 
among  them  Gershom  Bulkley  of  Wethersfield,  and  Israel 
Chauncy  of  Stratford. 

As  is  well  known,  the  first  settlers  of  Connecticut  were  rigid 
Calvinists,  and  their  lives  were  in  harmony  with  their  convic- 
tions. In  their  view,  man,  by  nature,  was  wholly  depraved. 
There  was  no  goodness  in  his  heathen  heart.  The  flesh  and 
the  devil  were  his  daily  attendants  and  deadly  enemies.  His 
affections  were  perverted,  his  conscience  seared,  his  will  rebell- 
ious, his  soul  all  over  incrusted  with  sin.     So  broken  down 


46         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

was  lie  by  Adam's  wickedness  and  the  fall  tliat,  even  in  liis 
renewed  state,  lie  could  scarcely  pursue  his  own  interest  in  trade 
and  on  the  farm  without  continuous  prodding.  Unceasingly 
he  must  be  watched,  warned,  chastised,  and  by  the  ear  led 
back  to  the  path,  of  duty.  Those  who  thought  thus  naturally 
believed  in  future  j)unishment,  and  not  unreasonably  supposed 
that  a  beginning  might  proj^erly  be  made  here. 

The  government  stood  to  the  whole  people  in  the  same  rela- 
tion as  the  head  of  a  family  to  the  household  of  servants  and 
children.  It  dealt  with  grown  persons  much  in  the  way  the 
model  school-master  did  with  his  pupils  when  the  writer  was  a 
boy,  but  more  sternly.  The  Court's  censure  was  a  cautionary 
box  on  the  ear ;  the  prison  was  the  dark  closet ;  the  stocks,  the 
seat  under  the  table-;  the  j)illory,  the  standing  on  one  leg.  The 
cart's  tail  was  any  place  where  the  whipping  was  done.  The 
heavier  penalties,  reserved  for  more  hardened  offenders,  of 
course  found  no  counterpart  in  the  schools  for  children. 

Ten  years'  experience  having  shown  that  the  Mosaic  law,  as 
interpreted  and  administered  by  uninspired  courts,  did  not  se- 
cure uniform  and  certain  justice,  and  that  purblind  juries, 
without  supplemental  and  more  definite  rules  for  their  guidance, 
were  a  precarious  dej)endence  (see  Conn.  Col.  Kec,  i,  84,  118), 
the  General  Court,  in  April,  1646,  desired  Mr.  Ludlow,  the 
trusted  lawyer  of  the  Colony,  to  "  draw  forth  a  body  of  laws  for 
the  government  of  the  Commonwealth."  The  work  seems 
not  to  have  been  prosecuted  with  much  vigor,  but  in  May, 
1650,  it  was  finished  and  the  Code  established.  Dr.  Palfrey 
thinks  Mr.  Ludlow  had  not  mu(ili  to  do  with  the  compilation, 
for  the  insufficient  reason  that  the  record  does  not  show  that  he 
was  paid  for  the  service,  while  Mr.  Cullick,  the  secretary,  was 
allowed  "  six  pounds  in  part  payment  for  his  great  pains  in 
drawing  forth  and  transcribing,"  etc.  (Conn.  Col.  Rec,  i,  216.) 
Obviously  the  work  was  done  by  some  one  who  had  other  quali- 
ties than  those  of  a  scribe.  The  Code  is  introduced  by  a  short 
preamble  and  bill  of  rights,  both  copied  from  the  Massachu- 
setts "  Body  of  Liberties,"  or  code  of  laws,  prepared  by  the 
famous  JNathaniel  Ward.      The  bill  of  rights  prohibited  the 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         47 

taking  away  of  a  man's  wife  or  children,  or  his  goods  or  estate, 
or  his  lionor  or  good  name,  or  liis  liberty,  "  unless  by  the  virtue 
or  equity  of  some  express  law  warranting  the  same,"  "  or  in  case 
of  the  defect  of  a  law  in  any  particular  case,  by  the  word  of 
God  ;"  but  wicked  and  oppressive  laws  were  not  prohibited,  nor 
the  law-making  power  in  the  least  curtailed.  !N"or  could  the 
General  Court,  having  by  the  Constitution  the  exclusive  right 
to  legislate,  bind  itself  to  do  or  not  to  do,  at  another  time,  any- 
thing within  the  limits  of  its  just  authority.  It  could  command 
the  magistrates,  its  own  officers,  and  the  people,  but  not  itself, 
or  not  in  a  way  to  secure  obedience.  Sadly  the  Court  needed 
for  its  government  and  guidance  a  rigorous  master ;  a  superior 
power  competent  to  prohibit,  impose  restrictions,  and  define 
limits  which  would  be  respected.  The  power  w^hich  was  suf- 
ficient for  this  important  work,  was  in  the  Constitutional 
Convention  of  1639.     Unfortunately  it  was  not  exercised. 

The  laws  which  follow,  arranged  alphabetically  under  eighty 
distinct  headings,  cover  fifty-three  printed  octavo  pages.  Large- 
ly, those  of  a  frivolous  or  extravagant  character,  or  of  temporary 
interest,  are  omitted.  In  many  cases  the  penalties  attached  to 
crime  are  named,  and  the  power  of  the  magistrates  imposing 
them  limited.  Often  they  are  quaint,  sometimes  arbitrary  and 
indefensible,  but  as  a  whole  are  not  as  severe  or  absurd  as 
represented.  Mr.  J.  H.  Trumbull  has  done  well  to  make  com- 
parisons and  state  in  detail  the  results.  Too  long  have  the 
wretched  inventions  of  Peters,  and  the  careless  statements  of 
more  reputable  writers,  been  allowed  a  place  in  popular  history. 
(See  TrumbulFs  Blue  Laws,  1876.)     ^- 

The  corporal  punishments  inflicted  by  the  laws  of  1650  were 
not  harsh  as  compared  with  those  authorized  by  other  govern- 
ments, and  in  vogue  at  that  date.  Whipping  was  the  most 
common.  Oftenest  it  was  prescribed  for  the  poorer,  more  de 
graded  and  thick-skinned  classes — those  unable  to  pay  fines — 
and  was  the  penalty  for  theft.  Gentlemen  and  all  bearing  the 
title  of  Mr.  were  exempt  by  custom  from  this  and  other  forms 
of  corporal  punishment.  (TrumbulFs  Blue  Laws,  335.)  As 
a  class  they  were  much  favored  in  legislation.    Fines,  floggings. 


48         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

and  the  stocks  were  the  lot  of  swearers,  liars,  tipplers,  inebriates, 
pound-breakers,  etc.  For  forgery  the  offender  was  condemned 
'^  to  stand  on  the  pillory  three  several  lecture  days,  and  be  dis- 
abled to  give  evidence  or  verdict  in  any  court."  Among 
criminals,  those  convicted  of  capital  oifenses  excepted,  the  bur- 
glar and  highway  robber  fared  the  hardest.  For  the  first 
oifense  he  was  branded  on  the  forehead  with  the  letter  B  (bur- 
glar) ;  for  the  second,  branded  and  whipped  ;  for  the  third,  put 
to  death.  If  tlie  crime  were  committed  on  the  Lord's  day,  he 
was  to  suffer  as  before  mentioned,  and  in  addition  lose  one  ear 
on  the  first  conviction,  and  the  other  on  the  second.  The 
Indians,  too,  were  used  sometimes  roughly.  They  became 
"bold  and  insolent,"  entering  the  houses  of  the  English  unin- 
vited, handling  swords  and  guns  carelessly,  and  endangering 
limbs  and  lives.  For  so  doing  each  was  required  to  pay  half  a 
fathom  of  wampum,  and  if  any  injury  resulted  from  his  acts, 
though  accidental,  he  was  to  forfeit  "life  for  life,  limb  for  limb, 
wound  for  wound,  and  pay  for  the  healing  and  for  other  dam- 
ages." But  as  a  set-off,  so  to  say,  against  this  severity, "  one  of 
the  teaching-elders  was  desired,  with  the  help  of  Thomas  Stan- 
ton (interpreter),  to  go  among  them,  at  least  twice  a  year,  and 
make  known  to  them  the  counsels  of  the  Lord,"  the  Governor 
and  magistrates  to  see  the  work  attended  to,  and  be  present  if 
convenient.  At  a  later  period.  May,  1667,  they  were  forbidden 
to  work  or  play  on  the  Sabbath  within  the  English  limits,  the 
transgressor  to  pay  five  shillings  or  sit  in  the  stocks  one  hour. 

Punishment  by  im2)risonment  was  not  known  till  1640,  when 
a  house  of  correction  was  ordered  built. 

Leaving  out  of  consideration  the  capital  laws,  the  worst  has 
been  said  of  the  Code  of  1650.  Collectively,  the  acts  were  not 
barbarous  for  the  times,  but  it  must  be  allowed  that  heresy  and 
the  division  of  churches  had  not  yet  alarmed  the  Court. 

Hitherto  I  have  been  looking  for  an  opportunity  to  take 
formal  notice  of  the  Charter  of  Connecticut.  The  little  I 
have  to  say  may  as  well  be  said  here.  It  bears  date  April  23, 
1662,  and  was  granted  in  a  fit  of  heedless  generosity  by  Charles 
II,  chiefly  through  the  influence  of  the  accomplished  Governor 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         49 

of  Connecticut,  John  Winthrop  (the  younger).  It  took  the 
place  of  the  Constitution  as  the  supreme  law,  giving  to  the 
colonists  the  same  government  which  they  had  framed  for 
themselves  twenty-three  years  before.  By  its  terms  the  free- 
men were  authorized  to  elect  a  "  General  Assembly"  and  all 
their  own  officers;  "to  ordain  and  establish  all  manner  of 
wholesome  laws  not  contrary  to  the  laws  of  England  ;"-  and  to 
do  a  hundred  things  which  men  ought  not  to  do,  or  have  the 
authority  to  do.  Of  course  the  people  were  delighted  with  it, 
as  they  well  might  be.  By  its  means  their  territory  was 
greatly  enlarged,  and  the  New  Haven  Jurisdiction,  which,  for 
intelligible  reasons,  was  not  in  favor  at  the  English  court,  was 
put  under  their  government.  Thus  were  political  importance 
and  coveted  dominion  secured  without  cost  or  sacrifice  to  the 
favored  colony.  Thus  were  the  men  who  protected  the  regi- 
cides, and  allowed  none  but  church-members  to  participate  in 
the  government,  bereaved  of  their  peculiar  and  nmch  cherished 
institutions.  Not  unnaturally  the  people  of  Connecticut  were 
lifted  up  by  visions  of  greatness — greatness  thrust  upon  them, 
as  it  were.  Surely  they  had  much  cause  for  self-gloriiication. 
In  the  midst  of  the  excitement,  October  9,  1662,  the  General 
Assembly,  or  Court  of  Election,  met,  its  members  feeling, 
doubtless,  like  a  company  of  boys  round  a  new  velocipede 
owned  in  common.  The  Patent  or  Charter  was  read,  and  then 
the  precious  document  was  placed  in  charge  of  three  trusty 
persons  who  were  sworn  to  keep  it  sacredly.  Without  delay 
the  Assembly  proceeded  to  weiglity  business,  keeping  in  mind 
the  enhanced  dignity  of  the  older  and  dominating  colony.  It 
enacted  that  Hartford  should  be  the  "  settled  place  for  the 
convocation  of  the  General  Assembly ;"  that  "  Hartford  train- 
band should  have  the  preeminence  of  all  the  companies  in 
the  Colony" — Windsor  to  rank  second,  Wetherslield  tliird,  and 
*'  then  Farmington  ;"  that  the  laws  and  orders  then  in  existence 
should  continue  in  force  ;  that  "  a  solemn  day  of  thanksgiving" 
should  be  observed  for  the  Charter,  for  the  late  rain,  for  the 
abatement  of  sickness,  "  for  the  hopes  w^e  have  of  a  settle- 
ment in  the  ways  of  peace  and  righteousness,"  etc.     At  the 


50         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

same  time  a  committee  was  appointed  to  go  to  New  Haven 
"  to  treat  with  onr  loving  friends  there,"  while  persistent  at- 
tempts had  already  been  made  to  divide  the  strength  of  the 
doomed  colony  by  soliciting  and  accepting  in  detail  the  alle- 
giance of  portions  of  its  people.  In  this  whole  business,  with- 
out heeding  tlie  j^ledge  of  Governor  Winthrop  and  the  advice 
of  mutual  friends,  Connecticut  bore  herself  haughtily  and  dis- 
creditably. 'New  Haven  and  its  supporters,  though  exceed- 
ingly humiliated  and  harassed,  behaved  with  dignity  and 
honor ;  but  after  two  years  of  stout  resistance,  remonstrance, 
and  forbearance,  felt  constrained  to  submit.  Poor  Mr.  Daven- 
port, seeing  his  hopes  dashed  to  the  ground,  would  not  be 
comforted,  and  soon  removed  to  Boston.  The  union  of  the 
two  colonies  early  in  1665,  proved  a  profitable  and  happy  one ; 
but  it  might  have  been  effected  without  a  breach  of  good  faith, 
or  any  sacrifice  of  common  courtesy.  The  New  Haven  settlers 
were  a  proud,  aristocratic  people,  sick  at  the  outset,  and  could 
not  well  brook  rough  usage. 

To  the  union  with  New  Haven,  or  rather  to  the  accession  to 
the  chief  magistracy  of  the  last  governor  of  that  defunct 
colony,  William  Leete,  Dr.  Palfrey  attributes  the  introduction 
into  Connecticut  of  "  something  of  the  New  Haven  element 
of  extreme  Puritan  rigor — an  innovation  to  which  his  chief 
associate  in  the  magistracy  [Lt.-Governor  Robert  Treat]  was  by 
no  means  averse.  From  the  beginning  of  Leete's  administra- 
tion 'the  great  unreformedness'  of  the  people  excited  more 
anxiety  ;  .'  provoking  evils'  and  '  crying  sins'  seemed  to  multi- 
ply ;  rebukes  and  threat enings  were  more  remarked  ;  and 
divine  judgments  appeared  to  be  more  deserved  and  more  cer- 
tainly impending."  But  it  should  be  remembered  that  when 
Leete  became  Governor  (May,  1676)  the  New  England  colo- 
nies were  in  the  mid«t  of  a  terrible  war  w^ith  Philip  and  his 
confederates,  and  that  prostration,  repentance,  and  reformation 
were  acknowledged  to  be  the  indispensable  conditions  of  suc- 
cessful warfare.  I  have  already  spoken  of  the  laws  which 
Palfrey  cites  as  proofs. 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT   OF  CONNECTICUT.  51 


Chapter  III. 

The  people  of  Newtown,  when  about  to  leave  the  Bay, 
urged  as  a  reason  for  removal  that  they  could  not  maintain 
their  minister  without  more  land  for  their  cattle.  The  reason 
assigned  was  scarcely  sufficient,  but  it  shows  the  thought  that 
was  uppermost  in  their  minds.  In  pursuit  of  the  object  set 
forth  they  plunged  into  the  wilderness,  and  sought  the  reputed 
"  El  Dorado  of  the  West."  All  found  land  enough,  of  excel- 
lent  quality,  but  in  the  beginning  many  of  them  suffered  ter- 
ribly from  cold,  famine,  sickness,  and  war.  Still  they  perse- 
vered, purchased  and  cleared  their  lands,  vanquished  the 
savage  foe,  and  made  heroic  sacrifices  that  they  might  have  an 
asylum  for  their  religion.  To  make  secure  their  acquisitions 
and  privileges,  they  framed  a  Constitution  and  enacted  laws, 
swearing  rulers  and  the  ruled  ''  by  the  great  and  fearful  name 
of  the  ever-living  God"  to  maintain  them  inviolate.  "All 
male  persons  above  sixteen  years  of  age,"  including  slaves,  I 
suppose,  were  required  to  take  the  oath.  The  planters  were  a 
distinct  community,  at  the  outset  a  voluntary  association,  har- 
monious in  opinion,  faith,  and  practice,  and  owners  by  right  of 
the  territory  they  governed.  Could  they  not  properly  organ- 
ize as  they  did,  and  bind  themselves  to  one  another  and  the 
Commonwealth?  If  their  government  and  legislation  were 
adapted  to  their  condition,  and  suited  those  who  were  affected 
by  them,  who  should  complain  or  interfere  ?  Having  formed 
themselves  into  a  political  society  for  their  private  ends,  could 
they  not  rightfully  exclude  from  their  company  meddling 
intruders  whose  views  and  teaching  were  hostile  to  their  own, 
and  destructive  to  their  institutions,  using  force  when  per- 
suasion was  not  sufficient  ?  A  few  years  ago  it  was  said,  with 
telling  effect,  that  the  government  had  a  right  to  life,  and  to 
employ  any  means,  whether  constitutional  or  otherwise,  to 
preserve  it.  Without  emendation,  I  would  not  subscribe  to 
that,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  (so-called)  Common- 
wealth under  Ilaynes,  Hopkins,    Winthrop,  and  others,  was 


52  EARLY    GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT. 

worthy  to  live,  certainly  while  those  who  were  ruled  by  it,' 
and  who  alone  could  suffer,  were  in  favor  of  it. 

But  in  this  connection  other  questions  press  for  answers. 
Can  a  man  control  his  convictions,  fix  permanently  his  belief, 
and  evermore  bind  himself  to  it  ?  If  he  can  do  this  for  him- 
self, can  he  for  his  children  and  successors  ?  Could  a  part  of 
those  who  instituted  the  government  and  made  the  laws  right- 
fully change  the  substance  or  forms  of  their  religion,  and  on 
that  ground  claim  a  release  from  their  oaths  to  preserve  it  as  it 
was  ?  Again,  when  a  people  solemnly  and  devoutly  pledge 
themselves  to  do  certain  things,  will  that  pledge  justify  the 
doing  when  more  light  proves  that  the  truth  is  sacrificed  ? 
These  questions,  when  fully  comprehended,  are  better  calcu- 
lated to  spread  consternation  among  the  faculties,  than  call 
forth  satisfactory  answers. 

Everywhere  the  practice  has  been  not  to  permit  a  few  zeal- 
ots, however  conscientious,  to  undermine  the  established  faith, 
introduce  discord  into  churches,  disturb  the  public  j)eace,  and 
destroy  the  beneficent  work  of  generations.  I  am  not  prepared 
to  say  that  the  practice,  humanely  carried  out,  is  wrong.  Surely 
reformers,  to  attain  a  supposed  greater  good,  should  themselves 
be  willing  to  sacrifice  something — their  ambition,  their  love  of 
notoriety,  their  temporal  welfare — and  remove  as  our  fathers 
did  from  England.  Have  not  the  majority,  as  well  as  the  other 
side,  the  right  to  enjoy  undisturbed  their  convictions  ?  When 
conscienises  are  at  war,  when  reconciliation  is  impossible,  and 
universal  toleration  unknown,  might  will  at  last  solve  the  dif- 
ficulty, and  the  weaker  party,  yielding  nothing  when  it  could, 
must  go  to  the  wall. 

Not  having  come  to  Connecticut  to  establish  religious  liberty 
— liberty  as  a  princij)le — the  early  planters  could  not  be  ex- 
pected to  attempt  anything  in  that  direction.  Nor  should  they 
be  singled  out  for  censure  because  their  opinions  and  practice 
were  not  in  advance  of  the  communities  from  which  they  came. 
In  this  regard,  it  is  enough  that  they  did  not  fall  below  the 
wisest  and  best  men  of  that  age.  When,  however,  their  theory 
of  government — a  theory  which  their  needs  compelled  them  to 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         53 

adopt,  and  which  Mr.  Hooker,  in  the  sermon  already  referred 
to,  distinctly  announced — when,  I  say,  their  theory  of  govern- 
ment recognized  the  people  as  tlie  rightful  source  of  all  politi- 
cal power,  and  the  majority  as  the  true  exponent  of  the  people's 
will,  liberty  in  its  better  sense  was  made  possible — made  so  in- 
advertently, as  I  judge.  It  is  on  the  originality  and  supposed 
soundness  of  their  theory  that  the  constitution-makers  must 
base  their  renown.  In  acknowledging  the  people  as  the  foun- 
tain of  all  just  authority,  they  committed  themselves  to  a  prin- 
ciple of  which,  seemingly,  they  did  not  know  the  full  significance 
— one  which  might,  and  in  the  end  did,  lead  to  the  overthrow 
of  their  cherished  exclusiveness  in  religion.  The  latter  they 
endeavored  to  perpetuate  by  "  appropriate  legislation,"  and  for 
a  long  period  they  succeeded  without  important  disaster ;  but 
at  length  the  Revolution  came ;  politicians  learned  their  own 
power ;  the  minority  clamored  for  recognition  ;  the  caucus  was 
instituted;  the  "people"  proved  unstable,  the  constitution- 
makers  again  assembled ;  and  after  a  memorable  career  of  one 
hundred  and  eighty  years,  the  "standing  order"  succumbed. 

Religious  liberty  in  Connecticut,  as  elsewhere,  grew  out  of 
dissent  and  the  divisions  of  dissenters.  When  the  latter  class 
became  numerous  enough  to  encourage  the  hope  of  ousting 
those  in  authority,  and  were  so  divided  among  themselves  that 
no  sect  could  obtain  power  without  the  help  of  the  others,  lib- 
erty became  vastly  popular — became  so  because  its  advocacy 
was  the  indispensable  condition  of  political  success.  It  was 
not  conceded  as  a  right  by  those  who  governed,  but  wrung 
from  them  by  political  necessity  and  the  force  of  numbers.  I 
can  think  of  no  instance  in  which  those  adopting  restrictive 
measures  have  volunteered  a  liberal  policy  at  the  request  of  a 
minority.  It  is  possible,  or  at  least  credible,  that  either  of  the 
classes  that  united  to  overthrow  the  Congregational  dynasty  in 
1818,  and  took  control  of  the  government,  would  have  pre- 
ferred the  exclusive  privileges  which  preceding  rulers  possessed 
to  the  universal  toleration  it  was  pledged  to  support — would 
have  preferred  it  because  of  the  opportunity  which  would  be 
offered  to  establish,  by  union  with  the  State,  its  own  particular 
faith. 


54         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

Political  power,  for  most  minds,  has  an  irresistible  charm. 
It  controls  the  honors,  the  services,  and  the  revenues  of  the 
people.  All  are  struggling  for  it,  and  no  one  yields  to  another 
till  forced  to  do  so.  The  greatest  patriot  in  the  land,  repub- 
lican, democrat,  national,  or  whatever  he  may  call  himself — 
holds  on  to  it  as  with  a  death-grip.  'Not  only  the  ambitious 
and  mercenary  desire  it,  but  the  philanthropist  sees,  or  thinks 
he  sees,  a  hundred  ways  in  which  he  may  use  it  for  the  benefit 
of  humanity,  and  procure  money  without  stint  for  his  pet 
schemes.  Men  in  power  who  represent  diverse  interests,  and 
best  know  how  damaging  in  many  ways  would  be  the  con- 
tinued ascendancy  of  any  particular  sect,  party,  order,  or  class; 
however  good  it  may  seem,  will  be  least  likely  to  abuse  their 
opportunities.  So  long  as  the  ruling  majority  is  too  much  di- 
vided to  allow  of  dangerous  combinations,  and  a  dissenting  and 
opposing  minority,  numerous,  vigilant,  and  courageous,  is 
prompt  to  expose  and  denounce  oppressive  and  wicked  legisla- 
tion, and  stands  ready,  when  called,  to  occupy  the  places  of  the 
oppressors — so  long  will  liberty,  religious  and  political,  have  a 
reasonable  chance  for  preservation. 

The  framers  of  the  Constitution  in  1639  took  good  care  that 
the  Church  should  be  given  no  power  to  be  called  its  own. 
To  its  tender  mercies  when  force  might  be  used  they  would 
trust  nothing.  Their  own  sufferings  in  England  had  doubtless 
destroyed  their  conlidence  in  its  reasonableness  or  justice,  when 
inflamed  by  zeal  or  provoked  by  opposition.  So  jealous  were 
they  of  the  influence  of  church-members,  acting  as  sucli,  that, 
rejecting  the  example  and  practice  of  "  Massachusetts,  they 
refused  to  give  them  the  smallest  advantage  in  their  political 
system.  The  nearest  approach  to  partiality  in  this  regard  was 
made  when  they  required  the  Governor  to  be  a  member  of 
some  approved  or  lawful  congregation.  In  this  way  they 
hoped  to  curb  ecclesiastical  ambition,  and  keep  church-ofiicials 
within  reach  of  the  civil  power.  So  long  as  the  churches  (at 
flrst  they  were  not  so  united  as  to  constitute  a  church)  pro- 
ceeded in  accordance  with  the  rules  established  and  the  views 
entertained  by  the  General  Court,  no  interference  was  attempt- 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.  55 

ed ;  but  if  they  chose  to  wander  in  forbidden  paths,  either 
in  doctrine  or  discipline,  authority  which  none  dared  to  dispute 
was  interposed.  A  hiw  in  the  collection  of  1650  declared  that 
the  civil  authority  had  power  to  preserve  the  peace  and  main- 
tain the  "  ordinancies  and  rules  of  Christ  in  every  church,  and 
to  deal  with  any  church-nieniber  in  the  way  of  civil  justice, 
notwithstanding  any  church  relation,  office,  or  interest,  pro- 
vided it  be  done  in  a  civil  and  not  ecclesiastical  way,"  nor 
could  "  any  church  censure,  degrade,  or  depose  any  man  from 
any  civil  dignity,  office,  or  authority  ;"  nor  could  excommuni- 
cation prevent  him  from  making  a  will,  or  alienating  his  lands 
or  estate.     (Conn.  Col.  Rec,  i,  510,  525.) 

As  I  understand  it,  the  General  Court  was  the  head  of  the 
church,  or  rather  of  the  churches.  It  was  more  than  pope,  or 
pope  and  college  of  cardinals,  for  it  exercised  all  authority, 
civil  and  ecclesiastical.  In  matters  of  discipline,  faith,  and 
practice,  there  was  no  appeal  from  its  decisions.  Except  the 
right  to  be  protected  in  their  orthodoxy,  the  churches  had  no 
privileges  which  the  Court  did  not  confer  and  could  not  take 
away.  When,  at  length,  in  obedience  to  a  command  ef  the 
General  Assembly,  their  delegates  met  at  Saybrook,  in  Sep- 
tember, 1708,  selected  and  approved  a  confession  of  faith,  and 
assented  to  certain  heads  of  agreement  and  regulations  regard- 
ing church  discipline,  the  Assembly  was  called  on  to  ratify 
and  legalize  the  proceeding.  Thus  the  Saybrook  Platform 
was  established,  and  became  the  law  of  the  land.  It  gave  to 
the  churches,  individual  and  consociated,  certain  powers  and 
privileges,  as  if  by  charter,  and  prescribed  certain  rules  of 
proceeding,  but  did  not  authorize  the  use  of  other  than  moral 
means  for  correction.  The  extreme  penalty  was  non-comnmn- 
ion.  Dr.  Trumbull  calls  it  the  religious  constitution  of  the 
Colony. 

When  the  Saybrook  Platform  was  adopted.  State  and  Church 
in  Connecticut  were  formally  united  ;  but.  there  was  no  trans- 
fer of  power  from  the  civil  to  the  ecclesiastical  side,  or  none 
which  could  not  at  any  time  be  recalled.  This  formal  union, 
as  defined  in  the  Saybrook  Platform,  was  continued  till  1784, 


56         EAKLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

when  all  laws  not  found  in  the  revised  Code  of  that  date,  includ- 
ing the  "Act  in  Approbation  of  the  Agreement  at  Sayhrook," 
were  repealed.  Thenceforth  the  famous  Platform  had  no 
binding  force  in  law,  but  was  generally  adhered  to  as  a  satis- 
factory voluntary  arrangement. 

In  the  beginning,  and  till  1708,  while  the  churches  were 
voluntary  organizations,  committed  by  the  Constitution  of 
1639  to  the  immediate  care  of  the  government,  with  no 
dependence  on  each  other,  nearly  all  the  legislation  relating  to 
them  was  reserved  for  emergencies.  It  was  advisory,  admoni- 
tory, sometimes  mandatory  or  prohibitory.  The  Assembly  was 
bound  to  protect  and  preserve  them  as  originally  constituted, 
but  seemed  reluctant  to  use  its  undoubted  authority.  It  acted 
the  part  of  the  armed  and  faithful  but  humane  sentinel,  watch- 
ing, warning,  forbearing,  deprecating,  but  refusing  to  fire  till 
the  danger  was  imminent  and  necessity  impei-ative.  In  case, 
however,  good  advice  was  unheeded,  and  a  Avayward,  rebellious 
spirit  manifest,  it  was  perem2)tory,  issuing  its  decrees,  and 
enforcing  obedience  by  summary  processes. 

Thougli  the  churches  were  helpless  as  to  any  distinct  author- 
ity of  their  own,  they  exerted  a  powerful  influence.  As  the 
government  was  instituted  for  their  special  benefit,  they  could 
rightfully  claim  a  large  share  of  its  attention. 

The  elders  or  ministers,  though  not  accustomed  to  hold 
political  office,  had  much  to  do  with  public  affairs,  and  were 
formally  consulted  on  important  occasions.  By  their  influence, 
says  Hutchinson,  the  best,  if  not  "  the  greatest  of  the  historians 
of  Massachusetts,"  magistrates  were  elected  or  displaced.  In 
the  devising  and  perfecting  of  laws  relating  to  religion,  moral- 
ity, and  the  safety  of  the  churches,  they  seem  to  have  taken 
the  lead.  At  the  call  of  duty,  themselves  being  judges,  they 
did  not  hesitate  "  to  preach  politics,"  to  hold  up  the  law  and 
point  out  the  right,  giving  chapter  and  verse.  They  did  this 
on  the  Sabbath,  on  the  weekly  lecture-days,  on  thanksgiving- 
days,  and  especially  on  fast-days — a  custom  not  yet  forgotten. 
In  their  annual  election-sermons  (one  was  ordered  printed  as 
early  as  16T4),  they  remembered  the  purpose  of  their  appoint- 


EARLV   government   of   CONNECTICUT.  57 

ment,  and  lectured  the  law-makers  on  their  political  as  well  as 
religious  duties,  speaking  as  with  authority.  As  if  this  were 
not  enough,  the  Court,  in  May,  1708,  "recommended  [when 
addressing  the  clergy  it  did  not  often  cmnmand']  that  the 
ministers  in  their  respecti\  e  plantations  preach  annually  to  the 
freemen,  on  the  day  of  election,  a  sermon  for  direction  in  the 
choice  of  civil  rulers,"  etc.  Many  years  before,  the  great  spir- 
itual leader  of  Massachusetts,  John  Cotton,  had  said  "  that  the 
rulers  of  the  people  should  consult  with  the  ministers  of  the 
churches  upon  occasion  of  any  war  to  be  undertaken,  and  any 
other  weighty  business,  though  the  case  should  seem  ever  so 
clear,  as  David  in  the  case  of  Ziglag,"  etc.  (Savage's  Win- 
throp,  i,  283.)  The  divine  blessing,  it  was  contended,  could 
not  be  expected  were  their  advice  neglected.  If  they  had  not 
more  influence  at  the  court  of  heaven  than  other  men,  they 
were  more  familiar  with  the  Bible,  as  a  general  rule  more 
intelligent,  sagacious,  and  often  wiser  than  those  who  sought 
their  assistance  and  direction.  Some  of  them  were  men  of 
rare  intellectual  gifts,  eloquent  as  preachers,  skilled  in  disputa- 
tion, and  proficients  in  all  the  learning  of  the  time.  Several 
were  also  distinguished  as  surgeons  and  physicians.  The  Rev. 
Gershom  Bulkley,  of  Wethersfield,  received  the  "hearty 
thanks'^  of  the  council,  and  thirty  pounds  for  his  eminent 
service  as  surgeon  in  the  war  with  King  Philip,  in  1675. 
(Conn.  Col.  Eec,  ii,  483.)  The  Eev.  Jared  Eliot,  of  Killing- 
worth,  at  a  later  day,  was  tlie  most  noted  physician  in  the 
Colony. 

The  ministers  perpetuated  and  extended  their  influence  by 
becoming  the  instructors  of  the  youth.  They  fitted  boys  for 
college,  were  their  tutors  after  admission,  and  superintended 
or  supervised  the  whole  business  of  education. 

Writing  of  their  position  in  the  social  and  political  system, 
Dr.  Trumbull  remarks : 

"The  most  perfect  harmony  subsisted  between  the  legislature  and 
the  clergy.  Like  Moses  and  Aaron,  they  walked  together  in  the  most 
endeared  friendship.  The  governors,  magistrates,  and  leading  men 
were  their  spiritual  children,  and  esteemed  and  venerated  them  as  their 

6 


58         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

fathers  in  Christ.  As  they  had  loved  and  followed  them  into  the  wil- 
derness, they  zealously  supported  their  influence.  The  elergy  had  the 
highest  veneration  for  them,  and  spared  no  pains  to  maintain  their 
authority  and  government.  Thus  they  grew  in  each  other's  esteem  and 
brotherly  affection,  and  mutually  supported  and  increased  each  other's 
influence  and  usefulness." 

In  another  place  the  Doctor  says  :  "In  no  government  have 
the  clergy  had  more  influence,  or  been  treated  with  more  gen- 
erosity and  respect  by  the  civil  rulers  and  people  in  general, 
than  in  Connecticut."  (Hist.  Conn.,  i,  301.)  Here  is  an 
illustration  of  the  distinguished  consideration  with  which  they 
were  treated  on  occasions  not  uncommon :  Early  in  165Y  there 
was  appointed  a  general  council  or  synod,  to  be  held  in  Boston, 
in  which  the  churches  of  Connecticut  were  to  be  represented. 
That  the  ministers  might  be  sure  of  treatment  suited  to  their 
dignity  and  mission,  the  General  Court  "  ordered  that  the 
deputies,  with  the  deacons  of  the  church  in  each  town,  take 
care  that  their  said  elders  be  comely  and  honorably  attended 
and  suited  with  necessaries  in  their  journey  to  the  Bay  and 
home  again ;  and  that  the  same,  with  their  proportion  of 
charge  in  the  Bay,  during  their  abode  there  upon  this  service, 
be  discharged  by  the  [Colony]  treasurer ;  and  also  the  deputies 
are  empowered  to  press  horses*  (if  need  be)  for  the  end  afore- 
said." 

At  ^n  early  period  the  ministers  of  the  Colony  held  their 
annual  meetings  in  Hartford  at  the  time  of  the  general  elec- 
tion.    On  these  occasions  "  a  genteel  entertainment "  was  given 

*  The  power  to  press  men  and  to  seize  horses,  oxen,  boats,  and  other 
property  for  the  public  convenience,  was  given  on  slight  occasion,  and 
apparently  without  much  regard  for  private  rights.  Soldiers  were^ 
raised  by  impressment.  In  1669  a  town-meeting  of  New  Haven,  when 
building  a  meeting-house,  gave  ' '  liberty  to  press  such  men  as  is  neces- 
sary for  that  end."  (Bacon's  Hist,  Discourses,  p.  178.)  To  provide 
against  the  panic  which  the  small  pox,  then  a  terrible  scourge,  excited, 
the  Assembly,  in  May,  1711,  authorized  any  two  justices  of  the  peace  to 
issue  warrants  to  impress  nurses,  and  to  take,  forcibly,  lodging-houses 
or  any  thing  needed  for  the  sick.  If  any  person  did  not  heed  the  sum- 
mons, he  incurred  a  penalty  not  exceeding  five  pounds.  By  a  later  law 
(1728),  the  offender  was  to  be  committed  to  the  common  jail  till  he  (or 
she)  "will  better  conform,  or  the  occasion  of  the  impressing  be  over." 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         59 

to  them  and  the  elders  from  the  neighboring  colonies  who  were 
present,  at  the  public  expense.  This  custom,  said  Dr.  Trum- 
bull in  1797,  "has  been  continued  to  the  present  time  "  (i,  505). 
If  a  minister  were  not  paid  his  salary  promptly,  the  treasurer 
of  the  Colony  was  required,  at  the  request  of  the  injured  party, 
to  levy  and  by  his  warrant  collect  the  tax,  and  pay  the  amount 
due  (Conn.  Col.  Rec,  v,  50).  The  clergy  were  also  exempt 
from  taxation  in  the  towns  in  which  they  lived,  though  often 
rich. 

Did  the  early  ministers  of  Connecticut,  venerated,  trusted, 
and  caressed,  never  abuse  their  unparalleled  opportunities? 
Did  they  never  use  their  great  influence  for  ambitious,  selfish,  or 
other  unhallowed  purposes?  That  they,  more  than  others, 
were  responsible  for  the  ecclesiastical  legislation  of  the  Colony, 
and  particularly  for  the  acts  designed  to  enforce  conformity, 
cannot  be  denied.  If  these  laws  were  milder,  more  enlight- 
ened than  those  of  Massachusetts,  of  the  colonies  further  south, 
and  of  England,  let  them  have  credit  for  that.  'No  doubt  they 
were  generally  conscientious,  but  this  fact  did  not  wipe  out  the 
wrong  done,  nor  make  more  acceptable  the  penalties  exacted.  I 
believe  that  Dr.  Trumbull's  statement  that  "  they  were  men  of 
the  strictest  morals,"  is  quite  true.  Certain  I  am  that  the 
scandalous  charges  of  which  we  have  heard  much  in  our  day 
were  not  made  against  them. 

In  the  beginning  the  churches,  appear  to  have  been  main- 
tained by  voluntary  contributions,  but  this  method  doubtless 
proved  to  be  unequal  and  insufficient.  That  a  better  might  be 
provided,  the  Commissioners  of  the  "  United  Colonies  of  New 
England,"  representing  Massachusetts,  Plymouth,  Connecticut, 
and  New  Haven,  which  first  met  in  Boston  in  September,  1643, 
took  the  matter  in  hand.  They  proposed  a  law  to  the  several 
colonies,  which  was  adopted  by  Connecticut  in  October,  1644. 
(See  Hazard,  ii,  17.)  The  preamble  of  the  Act  as  printed  in  the 
Code  of  1650,  reads  thus :  "  And  whereas,  amongst  many  other 
precious  mercies,  the  ordinances  have  been  and  are  dispensed 
with  much  purity  and  power,"  this  Court,  "fortlie  encour- 
agement of  the  ministers  who  labor  therein,  do  order  that  tho86 


60         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

who  are  taught  in  the  word,  in  tlie  several  plantations,  be  called 
together,  that  every  man  voluntarily  set  down  what  he  is  willing 
to  allow  to  that  end  and  use :  And  if  any  man  refuse  to  pay  a 
meet  proportion,  that  then  he  be  rated  by  authority  in  some 
just  and  equal  way ;  and  if  after  this  any  man  withhold  or 
delay  due  payment,  the  civil  power  to  be  exercised  as  in  other 
just  debts." 

By  another  law  embraced  in  the  same  Code,  entitled  "  Rates," 
it  was  "  ordered  that  every  inhabitant  shall  henceforth  contrib- 
ute to  all  charges,  both  in  church  and  commonwealth,  whereof 
he  doth  or  may  receive  benefit,  proportionably  to  his  ability," 
etc.,  he  having,  as  before,  the  option  of  doing  it  voluntarily  or 
by  compulsion.  "  And  the  lands  and  estates  of  all  men,  where- 
ever  they  dwell,  shall  be  rated  for  all  town  charges,  both  civil 
and  ecclesiastical,  where  the  lands  and  estates  shall  lye,  and 
their  persons  where  they  dwell."  Every  male  person  of  sixteen 
years  of  age  and  upwards  (except  magistrates,  elders  of  churclies, 
and  those  disabled  by  sickness,  lameness,  etc.)  was  "to  be 
assessed  and  rated  at  two  shillings  sixpence  by  the  head,  and 
all  estates,  both  real  and  personal,  at  one  penny  for  every 
twenty  shillings."  In  the  lists,  cattle,  including  horses,  sheep, 
goats,  and  swine,  were  to  be  entered  at  specified  rates,  and  all 
other  personal  and  real  estate  at  "a  true  estimation."  The 
rates  were  payable  in  the  several  varieties  of  corn,  wheat,  pease, 
rye,  Indian  com,  and  sometimes  in  wampum,  all  at  prices  fixed 
by  the  General  Court.  If  any  person  neglected  to  pay,  his 
goods  were  distrained,  and  if  need  be,  his  body  imprisoned. 
If  the  town  constables,  who  collected  the  Colony  taxes,  were 
negligent,  their  goods  were  distrained,  and  if  payment  was  not 
then  forthcoming,  the  public  treasurer  was  authorized  to  col- 
lect "  all  arrearages  of  levies  "  from  any  man  or  men  of  tlie 
delinquent  town  by  the  same  process,  he  or  they  thus  despoiled 
having  a  rightful  claim  on  the  town  for  the  amount  taken,  with 
damages. 

By  a  later  law  (Revision  of  1702)  assistants  (magistrates), 
justices  of  the  peace,  ministers  of  the  gospel,  allowed  physi- 
cians, and  school-masters  were  exempted   from  the  poll   tax. 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF   CONNECTICUT.  61 

By  another,  passed  in  October,  1706,  the  estates  of  all  the  set- 
tled ministers  of  the  Colony,  lying  in  the  towns  in  which  they 
dwelt,  and  the  polls  of  their  families  were  similarly  exempted. 
This  last  act,  making  no  distinction  between  the  standing  order 
and  dissenters,  continued  in  force  till  the  political  revolution  of 
1818 ;  but  it  is  worthy  of  remembrance  that  at  the  time  of  its 
enactment  all  the  settled  ministers  in  Connecticut  were  Con- 
gregationalists.  I  am  mistaken — Mr.  Valentine  Wightman,  in 
1705,  became  the  pastor  of  a  Baptist  Church  in  Groton,  the 
first  in  this  Colony,  gathered  in  violation  of  law.  He  was  much 
persecuted.     (Sprague's  Annals,  vi,  27.) 

In  October,  1651,  lists  of  the  estates  of  the  six  towns  in  the 
Colony  (Hartford,  Windsor,  Wethersfield,  Farmington,  Fair- 
field, and  Stratford)  were,  for  the  first  time,  presented  to  the 
Court.  They  amounted  to  £75,492-10-6.  At  the  same  time 
the  treasurer  was  directed  to  issue  warrants  for  the  collection  of 
a  tax  equal  to  "  a  whole  rate  "  (or  one  penny  in  the  pound,  as  I 
suppose),  persons  or  polls  to  be  rated  at  eighteen  pence  instead 
of  two  and  sixpence,  as  required  by  the  previous  law.  After- 
ward (October,  1657),  polls  were  put  in  the  lists  at  the  fixed 
sum  of  eighteen  pounds  each,  as  I  gather  from  the  figures ;  so 
that  each  person  of  sixteen  years  and  over  paid  as  much  on  his 
head  as  the  owner  of  eighteen  pounds  estate. 

Our  fathers  did  not  make  laws  till  they  were  wanted  for  use  ; 
did  not  enact  penalties  till  there  was  neglected  duty  to  be  en- 
forced or  crime  punished.  During  the  first  few  years  all  prob- 
ably went  to  meeting.  Had  any  been  disinclined  they  would 
not  have  followed  their  ministers,  at  so  much  cost,  through  the 
wilderness.  But  in  1650,  when  loose  practices  had  crept  in,  a 
legislative  act  and  a  -forfeit  were  required  as  incentives.  ISTo 
doubt  the  faithful  preacher  would  spend  his  breath  without 
result  if  there  were  not  ears  to  hear ;  so  in  the  code  room  was 
found  an  order  which  reads  thus  :  "  Wheresoever  the  ministry 
of  the  word  is  established  according  to  the  order  of  the  gospel 
throughout  this  jurisdiction,  every  person  shall  duly  resort  and 
attend  thereunto  upon  the  Lord's  day,  and  upon  such  public 
fast  days  and  days  of  thanksgiving  as  are  to  be  generally  kept 


62         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

by  authority,"  or  pay  a  fine  of  'B.yq  shillings  for  each  neglect. 
The  act  assumed,  as  the  much  harsher  law  of  England  did,  that 
it  was  the  duty  of  every  person  to  attend  divine  service,  and 
the  proper  business  of  the  government  to  enforce  whatever 
duty  enjoined. 

Two  other  acts,  passed  in  March,  1658,  should  be  noticed  in 
this  connection.  The  first  required  "  that  henceforth  no  per- 
sons in  this  jurisdiction  s'hall  in  any  way  embody  themselves 
into  church  estate  without  consent  of  the  General  Court,  and 
approbation  of  neighbor  churches."  The  second  declared  as 
follows  :  "  There  shall  be  no  ministry  or  church  administration 
entertained  or  attended  by  the  inhabitants  of  any  plantation  in 
this  Colony,  distinct  and  separate  from  and  in  opposition  to 
that  which  is  openly  and  publicly  observed  and  dispensed  by 
the  settled  and  approved  minister  of  the  place,  except  it  be  by 
approbation  of  the  Cieneral  Court  and  neighbor  churches," 
provided  private  meetings  of  godly  persons  for  religious  pur- 
poses be  not  hindered,  etc. 

The  acts  of  March,  1658,  seem  to  have  had  a  special  refer- 
ence to  the  controversy  then  raging,  and  the  division  threatened, 
in  the  church  of  Hartford.  They  had  the  effect  intended,  and 
for  the  time  prevented  the  proposed  disruption. 

These  four  or  five  laws  constitute  the  famous  ecclesiastical 
laws  of  Connecticut,  so  much  criticised  and  denounced.  They 
commanded  several  things:  1,  The  churches  must  be  sup- 
ported like  the  State  by  a  general  tax  levied  on  the  polls  and 
estates  of  the  whole  people  ;  2,  All  must  go  to  meeting,  or 
attend  the  stated  religious  exercises,  under  a  penalty ;  3,  'No 
persons  must  "  embody  themselves  in  church  estate,"  or  set  up 
a  church,  without  the  consent  of  the  General  Court  and  the 
neighboring  churches;  4,  No  ministry  or  church  administra- 
.tion  must  be  allowed  in  opposition  to  the  lawful  and  approved 
minister  of  the  place,  except  with  the  consent  of  the  Court 
and  the  neighboring  churches.  They  were  enacted  by  Congre- 
gationalists  for  the  benefit  of  themselves,  and  the  support  of 
the  established  faith ;  were  designed  to  preserve  "  the  purity 
of  the  gospel,"  and  "  the  discipline  of  the  churches"  as  then 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  63 

understood ;  were  submitted  to  by  all  as  the  most  effectual 
means  known  to  secure  peace,  order,  harmony,  and  the  peculiar 
privileges  which  a  buffeted  people  hoped  to  enjoy  and  per- 
petuate. They  were  severely  restrictive  and  coercive,  but, 
unlike  the  acts  of  Parliament,  were  not  apparently  intended 
for  men  whose  conscientious  scruples  might  be  violated. 
There  w^as  then  no  class  whose  religious  belief  was  in  conflict 
with  that  of  the  dominant  party-^none  therefore  to  make 
unecpial  the  operation  of  the  laws.  The  people  who  enacted 
them  were,  for  a  long  period,  almost  the  only  sufferers,  though 
their  faith  had  not  changed.  Apart  from  the  brief  Quaker 
alarm  (and  the  acts  recited  w^ere  not  prompted  by  that),  there 
is  no  evidence  that  unfriendly  sects  were  expected  in  the 
Colony,  or  that  the  legislation  complained  of  had  any  reference 
to  their  possible  coming.  When  the  disturbers  did  appear, 
half  a  century  later,  existing  enactments  designed  to  secure 
peace,  unity,  and  prosperity  within  were  found  sufficient  for 
external  defense,  and  the  preservation  of  the  ruling  order. 
For  a  season  they  were  relied  on  to  prevent  or  repel  sectarian 
invasion,  but  erelong,  when  outside  pressure  threatened  mis- 
cliief,  their  rigor  by  degrees  was  relaxed — relaxed  for  the 
benefit  wholly  of  other  and  hostile  denominations,  without 
affording  the  smallest  relief  or  advantage  to  the  dissentients  or 
disorganizers  inside,  for  whose  discipline,  reformation,  or  sup- 
pression they  were  originally  intended. 

Many  years  afterward  other  restrictive  laws  were  enacted, 
usually  on  emergent  occasions  and  for  a  temporary  purpose. 
Like  the  ecclesiastical  laws  already  noticed  they  were  intended 
not  to  embarrass  dissenters  without,  but  to  control  irregularities 
and  dissensions  w^ithin  the  churches.  Though  anticipating 
somewhat  the  current  of  events,  convenience  and  logical 
method  induce  me  to  consider  them  here. 

The  irregularities  referred  to  occurred  in  connection  with 
the  Great  Awakening  so-called,  which  appeared  in  1740  and 
1741.  It  swept  over  the  Colony  like  a  whirlwind,  ''  extending 
to  old  and  young,  to  gray  headed  sinners,  and  even  to  little 
children."      (Trumbull,  ii,  143.)      Of  course  it  was  attended 


64  EARLY  GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT. 

by  extravagances,  confusion,  and  error.  The  clergy  and  the 
people  took  sides,  the  young,  more  impulsive  and  enthusiastic, 
urging  it  on,  the  older,  more  considerate  and  suspicious,  shak- 
ing their  heads  and  holding  back.  The  former  were  called 
l^ew  Lights,  the  latter  Old  Lights.  As  both  sides  agreed,  the 
devil  was  very  busy,  w^orking  fiercely  for  the  other  side.  The 
consequences  were  animosities,  passionate  and  bitter  strife,  and 
the  division  of  churches.  The  General  Assembly,  backed  by 
men  of  greatest  influence  and  the  college,  was  as  usual  cautious 
and  conservative,  the  magistrates  taking  the  lead.  For  a  season 
it  looked  on  and  forbore,  but  at  length,  to  prevent  fanatical 
preachers,  irritated  by  lay  exhorters,  from  roving  about  the  Col- 
ony, neglecting  their  own  duties,  and  interfering  with  those  of 
others,  on  the  plea  that  the  settled  ministers  were  asleep  or 
scandalously  unfaithful,  it  enacted,  in  May,  1742,  that  any 
minister  who  left  his  own  congregation  to  preach  to  anotlier, 
without  the  ''  express  invitation"  of  the  minister  and  church 
of  the  latter,  should  be  denied  the  benefit  of  any  law  for  the 
support  of  the  ministry — that  is,  of  any  law  enforcing  the  pay- 
ment of  his  salary.  It  inflicted  the  same  penalty  on  all  the 
attending  members  of  any  Association  (of  ministers)  which 
should  invade  the  rights  of  any  other  Association  in  granting 
licenses  to  preach,  etc.  If  any  person,  "not  a  settled  and 
ordained  minister,"  presumed  to  preach  or  exhort  publicly 
where  not  invited,  he  was  required  for  each  offense  to  give  a 
bond  for  "  one  hundred  pounds  lawful  money"  (specie)  "  not 
again  to  oflend."  If  a  foreigner  or  stranger,  whatever  his 
ecclesiastical  character  or  relations,  did  the  same  thing,  he  was 
to  be  sent  away  as  a  vagrant — conveyed  by  warrant  in  charge 
of  the  constables,  from  town  to  town,  out  of  the  Colony.  The 
Rev.  Samuel  Finley,  afterward  President  of  the  College  of 
New  Jersey,  who  received  a  call  from  an  association  of  Sepa- 
rates, so  termed,  in  Milford,  was  served  in  this  way.  After 
the  indignity,  with  the  spirit  of  a  martyr,  he  returned  and 
preached  in  New  Haven.  He  was  again  arrested  and  treated 
as  before.  To  meet  cases  of  this  kind  an  act  was  passed,  in 
October,  1743,  requiring  that  any  one  who  returned,  after  hav- 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         65 

ing  been  forcibly  removed,  should  be  apprehended,  and,  if 
found  guilty,  "  bound  in  the  penal  sum  of  one  hundred 
pounds,  lawful  money,  to  his  good  and  peaceable  behavior  till 
the  next  county  court,"  while  the  County  Court  was  author- 
ized to  further  bind  him  during  its  pleasure. 

In  New  London,  a  company  of  Separates  or  JS'ew  Lights, 
established  an  academy,  or  institution  called  the  "  Shepherd's 
Tent,"  in  charge  of  Eev.  Timothy  Allen,  previously  the  minis- 
ter of  West  Haven.  It  was  designed  to  qualify  young  men  as 
exhorters,  teachers,  and  ministers.  (Caulkins'  !N^ew  London, 
•i53.)  Fearing  it  might  "  train  up  youth  in  ill  principles  and 
practices,"  the  General  Assembly,  in  October,  1Y42,  forbade 
the  setting  up  or  maintaining  any  school  not  already  provided 
for  by  law^,  and  imposing  a  penalty  of  five  pounds  per  month 
on  the  school-master.  The  scholars  and  those  harboring  or 
boarding  them  were  to  be  proceeded  against  ''  according  to  the 
laws  respecting  transient  persons."  A  transient  person  was 
then  treated  as  a  vagrant,  who  might  become  a  pauper.  He 
was  not  allowed  to  abide  in  any  town  without  the  permission 
of  the  town  authorities.  If  he  did  so  after  having  been  warned 
to  depart,  he  was  doomed  to  pay  twenty  (afterward  ten) 
shillings  per  week.  If  he  could  not  pay,  and  did  not  leave  in 
ten  days  after  sentence,  he  (or  she)  was  to  be  whipped  on  the 
naked  body  not  exceeding  ten  stripes.  If  he  came  back  after 
having  been  forcibly  sent  away,  he  (or  she)  was  to  be  whipped 
ten  stripes  for  returning,  the  operation  to  be  repeated  "  as  often 
as  there  shall  be  occasion."  This  was  the  "tramp  law"  of 
that  day. 

It  is  probable  that  the  "  Shepherd  "  felt  constrained  to  hang 
up  his  crook  and  let  loose  his  flock,  perhaps  abruptly,  when  the 
news  of  the  new  law  reached  the  "  Tent." 

Many  of  the  New  Lights,  complaining  of  the  apathy,  or 
"  deadness,"  of  the  established  churches  and  tlieir  ministers, 
seceded  from  them  and  set  up  new  ones,  organizing  under  the 
law  of  1Y08  made  for  "  the  ease  of  such  as  soberly  dissent." 
They  thus  secured  the  privilege  of  having  worship  and  a  min- 
ister of  their  own,  but  were  not  excused  from  taxation  for  the 


66  EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

support  of  the  churches  thej  had  left.  The  second  society  of 
Milford  was  formed  in  this  way.  The  old  society,  the  town, 
the  county  association,  and  General  Assembly,  all  frowned  on 
them,  and  opposed  their  plans ;  so  "  they  put  themselves  under 
the  presbytery  of  'New  Brunswick,"  hoping  doubtless  to  escape 
what  is  now  called  "  home  rule."  For  about  twelve  years,  till 
May,  1750,  in  addition  to  their  own  heavy  burdens,  they  were 
compelled  to  pay  the  usual  taxes  for  the  benefit  of  the  first 
society.  (Trumbull,  ii,  338.)  The  same  hard  fate  awaited 
those  who  seceded  from  the  old  society  of  New  Haven,  over 
which  the  Rev.  Joseph  Noyes,  a  conservative  of  very  decided 
views,  was  settled.  Dr.  Bacon  in  his  "  Historical  Discourses," 
and  Dr.  Dutton,  in  his  "  History  of  the  JS'orth  Church,"  give 
interesting  accounts  of  the  separation,  and  the  events  connected 
with  it.  All  this  was  done  long  after  dissenting  Churchmen, 
Quakers,  and  Baptists  had  been,  successively,  released  from  the 
liability  to  support  or  give  encouragement  to  any  societies  but 
their  own. 

To  put  an  end,  as  far  as  possible,  to  further  division  of  the 
churches  and  congregations  by  innovators  proposing  dissent, 
the  Assembly,  in  May,  1743,  repealed  the  law  of  1708,  which 
law  had  been  construed  to  authorize  and  legalize  their  proceed- 
ings. At  the  same  time  it  enacted  that  sober  dissenters,  being 
Protestants,  ''  and  such  persons  as  having  any  distinguishing 
character  by  which  they  may  be  known  from  the  Presbyterians 
and  Congregationalists,  and  from  the  consociated  churches 
established  by  the  laws  of  this  colony,  may  expect  the .  indul- 
gence of  this  Assembly,"  after  having  qualified  themselves 
according  to  law.  As  I  understand  it,  this  curious  and  absurd 
act  promised  indulgence  to  Protestant  dissenters  who  might 
formally  apply,  with  full  permission  to  worship  in  their  own 
way,  provided  their  faith,  forms,  and  practice  differed  essen- 
tially from  the  Congregational — provided,  in  other  words,  their 
religion  was  of  the  kind  which  the  Assembly  had  always  dis- 
couraged and  opposed.  Members  of  the  established  churches 
must  renounce  tlieir  orthodoxy  and  embrace  other  opinions, 
before  they  could  hopefully  petition  for  the  privileges  of  the 
Act  of  1743. 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         67 

In  October,  1749,  tlie  Assembly  directed  that  the  law  of 
1708  "  for  the  ease  of  such  as  soberly  dissent "  should  be  printed 
with  the  revised  laws  of  1750.  Thus  was  that  reasonable  act 
revived.  None  of  the  enactments  designed  to  suppress  the 
errors  and  follies  of  the  New  Lights,  and  to  punish  the  authors, 
were  continued  in  the  revision.  The  excitement  had  run  its 
appointed  course,  and  there  was  no  longer  a  pretense  for  extra- 
ordinary laws.  They  were  shamefully  severe,  but  of  a  kind 
not  uncommon  at  that  day.  After  all,  it  is  difficult  to  say 
whether  the  disease  or  the  remedy  prescribed  for  it  was  the 
worse. 

The  fair-minded,  conscientious  Dr.  Trumbull  denounces 
tliese  laws  in  good  set  terms.  They  were  "  an  outrage  to  every 
principle  of  justice,  and  to  the  most  valuable  rights  of  the  sub- 
ject— a  palpable  contradiction  and  gross  violation  of  the  Con- 
necticut bill  of  rights."  They  "  dishonored  the  servant  of 
God,  vstained  his  good  name,  and  deprived  him  of  all  the  tem- 
poral emoluments  of  his  profession,  without  judge  or  jury, 
without  hearing  him,  or  knowing  what  evil  he  had  done." 
They  were  the  result  of  "  a  concerted  plan  of  the  Old  Lights,  or 
Arminians,  both  among  the  clergy  and  civilians,  to  suppress, 
as  far  as  possible,  all  the  zealous  and  Calvinistic  preachers ;  to 
confine  them  entirely  to  their  own  pulpits ;  and  at  the  same 
time  to  put  all  the  public  odium  and  reproach  possible  upon 
them,  as  wicked  and  disorderly  men,  unlit  to  enjoy  the  com- 
mon rights  of  citizens." 

These  laws  were  bad  enough,  certainly,  but  no  worse  than 
others  which  the  doctor  does  not  condemn  with  half  the  fer- 
vency. It  was  wrong,  grossly  so,  to  deprive  the  minister  of 
that  which  was  his  due,  but  it  was  not  less  so  to  compel  men 
to  hear  him  preach,  and  to  pay  for  a  service  which  they  did  not 
desire,  and  to  whicli  they  were  conscientiously  opposed. 

Dr.  Trumbull  published  the  second  volume  of  his  History  of 
Connecticut  when  he  was  eighty-two  years  of  age,  say  in  1818. 
More  than  four-ninths  of  it  (he  says  ''  about  a  third  ")  are  de- 
voted to  ecclesiastical  history,  the  most  difficult  of  all  to  write. 
The  author's  syinpathies  and  prejudices  did  not  often  get  the 


68         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

better  of  liis  judgment,  but  evidently  tlie  events  he  describes 
occurred  too  near  his  own  time,  as  he  himself  suggests.  He 
seems  to  have  taken  a  prof essional  and  personal  interest  in  them. 
His  feelings  became  enlisted,  as  shown  by  the  liberal  way  in 
which  he  mingles  preaching  with  history.  Having  made  up 
his  mind  who,  in  the  main,  was  right,  he  buckled  on  his  armor, 
and  thenceforth  had  a  cause  to  maintain  and  a  side  to  defend, 
^o  one  can  write  history  faithfully  and  well,  who,  at  the  outset, 
has  somebody,  some  sect,  or  party,  or  policy,  to  vindicate — or  if 
he  can,  he  conscientiously  won't.  A  weakness  common  to  us 
all  will  not  permit  it.  The  persons  whom  Dr.  Trumbull  cen- 
sures were  not  bad  men,  but  quite  the  contrary.  As  a  class 
they  were  eminent  for  wisdom,  virtue,  and  religion.  They  were 
misguided,  it  is  true,  as  good  men  frequently  are.  Not  as  well  as 
we  do  did  they  know  how  to  deal  with  excitement  in  its  epidemic 
form.  Their  opponents  were  disorderly,  often  provokingly  so. 
No  doubt  l)oth  sides  were  sincere,  as  men  heated  by  religious 
zeal  usually  are.  Sincerity  does  not  always  exclude  unsanctified 
passion. 

For  many  years  after  the  settlement  of  Connecticut,  internal 
peace  and  harmony  prevailed  in  church  and  commonwealth. 
The  people  were  contented  with  their  government,  religion, 
liberty,  and  the  guarantees  j)rovided  for  each.  Generally  they 
were  church-members,  men  of  rigid  morals,  intrepid  and  cour- 
ageous, who  left  comfortable  homes  for  a  wilderness  because 
willing  to  make  sacrifices  and  endure  hardships  for  their  con- 
victions. But  soon  it  was  observed  that  an  important  change 
was  going  on.  As  usual  in  new  settlements,  death  was  very 
busy.  Some  returned  to  England  to  fight  the  battles  of  Parlia- 
ment against  the  King.  There  were  a  few  new  arrivals,  and  a 
new  generation,  faster  than  the  old,  was  coming  on  the  stage. 
The  additions  and  substitutions,  on  the  whole,  lowered  the  stan- 
dards of  morality  and  religion.  Sadly  it  was  observed  that  the 
proportion  of  church-meml)ers  was  diminishing.  Young  parents 
neglected  to  have  their  children  baptized.  The  congregation, 
in  some  cases,  claimed  the  right  to  choose  the  pastor,  and  to 


EAKLY   GOVERNMENT   OJ^   CONNECTICUT.  69 

share  with  tlie  cliurch  other  privileges  which  had  previously 
been  denied.    Great  plainness  gave  place  to  comparative  luxury 
and  ostentatious  display.     Young  women,  and  perhaps   their 
mothers,  studied  the  fashions  and  dressed  more  than  their  qual- 
ity or  means  justified.     Too  often  the  young  men,  after  having 
defied  the  school-master,  got  wild  and  ungovernable,  sowing  the 
undomesticated  oat  when  they  should  have  been  thinking  of 
the  solemn  realities  of  matrimony  and  the  life  beyond.     Some 
of  the  more  fiery  rode  furiously  through  the  towns,  "  endanger- 
ing the  lives  of  themselves  and  others,"  so  that,  at  a  later  period, 
the  court  imposed  a  fine  of  five  shillings  for  riding  (no  driving 
then)  faster  than  "  an  ordinary  and  easy  hand  gallop."     (Conn. 
Col.  Rec,  ii,  110.)     Others  (a  little  older  probably),  tiring  of 
civilization,  took  up  their  abode  with  the  Indians,  leading  "  a 
profane  course  of  life,"  for  which  heathenish  practice  the  As- 
sembly, October,  1 642,  ordered  that  the  offenders  should  "  suffer 
three  years'  imprisomnent  at  least,"  and  submit  to  whatever  fine 
or  corporal  punishment  the   particular  Court   might  impose. 
The  youth  of  both  sexes  thouglit  their  fathers  austere,  their 
religion  too  self-denying  and  laborious.     They  probably  consid- 
ered a  Sunday  service  too  long  which  lasted  "  full  three  hours  " 
— the  time  allowed  by  the  Assembly  to  Mr.  Walker,  of  Strat- 
ford.    (Conn.  Col.  Rec,  ii.  111.)      In  connection  with  these 
evidences  of  loose  thinking  and  practice,  idleness,  vagabondism, 
licentiousness.  Sabbath-breaking,  tavern-haunting,  drunkenness, 
tol)acco-taking,  profanity,  "casting   out  pernicious  speeches" 
against  the  Commonwealth,  reviling  of  ministers  and  magis- 
trates, contemptuous  behavior  towards  tiie  word  preached,  lying, 
extortion,  defrauding  of   creditors,  card-playing,  gaming,  and 
other  vices  and  immoralities,  against  each  of  which  there  was  a 
stringent  law,  became  common.    As  early  as  1640,  so  numerous 
were  offenders,  and  so  "  stubborn  and   refractory  "  were  they 
when  held  for  trial  and  punisliment,  tliat  a  house  of  correction 
or  prison,  twenty-four  feet  by  sixteen  or  eighteen,  with  a  cellar, 
was  ordered  and  soon  tenanted.     It  is  presumed  to  have  been 
erected  in  Hartford.    In  May,  1664, "  an  addition  to  the  prison- 
house  "  became   necessary.      Tliree    years    later   othei*s   were 


YO         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

wanted,  and  the  three  destitute  counties,  Kew  Haven,  New 
London,  and  Fairiield,  were  ordered  eacli  to  provide  one.  I  do 
not  find  tliat  the  prisons  were  ever  occupied,  more  than  now,  by 
those  charged  with  "  profuse  and  extravagant  spending "  of 
the  public  money,  as  the  record  hath  it.     (ii,  242.) 

In  the  early  period  of  which  I  have  been  speaking,  appear- 
ances indicate  that  the  law-makers,  courts,  constables,  and  select- 
men all  had  their  hands  full,  their  fussy  activity,  as  now,  leaving 
but  feeble  traces  of  a  reformatory  influence.  Human  nature 
and  its  infirmities  were  the  same  two  hundred  and  thirty  or 
forty  years  ago  as  in  our  time,  nor  can  we  ex23ect  a  change  so 
long  as  the  controlling  law  of  heredity  is  ignored  or  despised. 
Did  I  know  when  a  wiser  and  better  use  would  be  made  of  that 
familiar  law,  I  could  tell  when  (without  a  miracle)  the  millen- 
nium would  begin.  As  the  case  now  stands,  the  civilized 
human  animal  is  tlie  one  which  derives  least  benefit  from  it. 
Largely  we  expend  our  energies  to  secure  the  survival  and  per- 
petuity, not  of  the  fittest,  but  of  the  basest. 

With  sorrow  it  must  be  said  that  intemperance  existed  early 
in  Connecticut.  Of  English  parentage,  it  came,  doubtless,  with 
the  immigrants,  took  root,  and  found  a  congenial  soil.  Historians 
forget  to  mention  it.  At  the  outset,  the  farmers  planted  their 
apple  orchards.  For  present  use  they  made  home-brewed  or 
"  household  beer."  So  soon  as  a  little  trade  sprang  up,  they 
obtained  (at  first  probably  by  the  way  of  Boston)  rum  from  the 
West  Indies,  wine  from  Madeira  and  Fayal,  and  strong  beer 
from  England.  As  a  part  of  their  military  outfit,  the  little 
band  of  Pequot  warriors,  in  1637,  was  provided  with  "  one 
hogshead  of  good  beer  for  the  captain  and  Mr.  [minister]  and 
sick  men,  three  or  four  gallons  of  strong  water,  two  gallons  of 
sack."  To  meet  a  growing  demand,  tippling  houses  and  dram 
shops  were  opened.  In  these  places  young  men  gathered, 
drinking  deep  and  staying  late.  As  now,  doubtless,  drunkards 
reeled  through  the  streets,  or  fell  by  the  wayside.  As  early  as 
August,  1639,  five  men  were  censured  and  fined  from  ten  to 
thirty  shillings  each,  for  "  unseasonable  and  immoderate  drink- 
ing."    To  correct  a  great  abuse,  the  license  system  was  adopted 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  71 

in  February,  1644.  To  still  further  limit  the  evil,  the  Court 
ordered,  May,  1647,  that  no  person  should  remain  in  any  vict- 
ualing house,  drinking  wine,  beer,  or  hot  water,  longer  than 
half  an  hour ;  nor  might  any  one  draw  more  than  one  pint  of 
sack  for  three  persons,  or  deliver  wine  to  be  taken  away  without 
an  order  from  the  master  of  a  family.  Except  in  cases  of  neces- 
sity, and  in  small  quantities,  inn-keepers  were  forbidden  to  sell 
hot  water ;  and  as  bell-punches  had  not  then  been  invented, 
they  were  required  to  give  an  account  of  their  doings  on  de- 
mand. For  any  delinquency  they  received  the  censure  of  the 
Court.  This  law  was  made  more  severe  in  1650,  and  fines 
attached  to  disobedience.  Getting  drunk  after  that  cost  the 
offender  ten  shillings ;  excessive  drinking,  three  shillings  and 
fourpence ;  tippling  more  than  half  an  hour,  two  and  six- 
pence ;  tippling  after  nine  o'clock  at  night,  five  shillings.  If 
payment  were  not  forthcoming  the  guilty  party  was  sent  to 
prison,  "  or  set  in  the  stocks  one  hour  or  more,  in  some  open 
place,  as  the  weather  will  permit."  For  the  second  offense  the 
fine  was  doubled,  for  the  third  trebled.  If  the  forfeit  could 
not  be  paid,  the  man  found  drunk  was  whipped  ten  stripes,  and 
the  hard  drinker  kept  in  the  stocks  for  three  hours,  weather 
permitting.  If  reformation  did  not  follow,  imprisonment  did, 
till  a  sufficient  bond  was  furnished  for  good  behavior.  (Conn. 
Col.  Kec,  i,  533-4.) 

In  October,  1654,  tlie  orchards  had  come  into  bearing,  and 
cider  was  produced  cheaply  and  abundantly.  The  thirsty 
farmers  made  it  a  common  drink.  In  the  mean  time  "  the 
great  and  crying  sin  of  drunkenness"  had  extended  to  the 
Indians.  In  an  important  sense,  the  whites  were  the  authors 
of  their  misery.  They  sold  them  cider  and  strong  beer,  so  the 
Court  imposed  a  fine  on  the  seller  of  five  pounds  for  every 
pint  of  any  kind  of  intoxicating  drink,  except  ordinary  house- 
hold beer,  sold  or  given  to  the  Indians,  one-third  to  go  to  the 
infonner.  So  much  of  the  prohibition  as  related  to  cider  was 
repealed  in  March,  1659,  and  reonacted  in  October,  1660.  At 
about  the  same  time  an  import  duty  of  twenty  shillings  a  butt 
w^as  imposed  on  wine,  and  of  five  shillings  an  anchor  (about 


72         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

ten  gallons)  on  liquors.  An  order  was  also  passed  that  no 
corn  or  malt  should  be  distilled,  the  fact  indicating  that  corn- 
whiskej  of  domestic  manufacture  had  been  or  was  about  to  be 
added  to  the  list  of  intoxicating  drinks. 

To  restrain  the  greed  of  venders  the  Assembly  ordered,  in 
October,  1674,  that  no  inn-holder  or  ale-house  keeper  should 
sell  cider  at  more  than  fourpence  a  quart,  or  liquors  at  over 
fourpence  a  gill,  but  there  was  no  penalty.  In  May,  1699, 
vintners,  ordinary  keepers,  and  retailers  were  forbidden  to  take 
above  eight  pence  in  money  for  a  pint  of  Madeira  wine,  six- 
pence a  pint  for  Fayal  wine,  twopence  a  gill  for  rum,  and  two- 
pence a  quart  for  cider  or  strong  beer.  The  forfeit  was  ten 
shillings,  one-half  to  go  to  the  informer.  Were  a  law  which 
aimed  to  secure  cheap  "  drinks"  proposed  now,  we  should 
think  it  the  work  of  demagogues  baiting  their  murderous 
hooks  for  rabble  votes. 

To  the  besetting  sin  of  intemperance,  our  fathers,  as  I  have 
shown,  gave  much  anxious  thought.  Like  their  successors, 
they  regarded  it  as  a  frightful  evil,  a  dangerous  and  degrading 
vice,  and  wrestled  with  it  perse veringly.  But  they  did  not 
practice  total  abstinence,  or  believe  in  universal  prohibition  as 
a  duty.  Honestly,  no  doubt,  they  thought  stimulating  drinks 
a  blessing,  a  solace  and  relief  when  properly  used,  and  a  curse 
only  when  abused.  With  this  conviction  they  endeavored  per- 
sistently to  separate  the  good  from  the  evil,  the  beneficial  from 
the  pernicious,  and  to  facilitate  the  work  adopted  the  license 
system.  Limitations,  restrictions,  and  severe  penalties  were 
imposed,  but  the  laws  were  violated,  and  the  system  as  it  then 
stood  lost  credit.  In  May,  1695,  the  General  Assembly,  find- 
ing "  that  excessive  drinking  was  increasing,  and  that  the  mul- 
tiplying of  licensed  houses  is  the  occasion  of  disorders,"  called 
in  all  licenses  except  those  held  by  inn-keepers,  and  turned 
over  the  business  to  the  towns  and  county  courts,  they  to  re- 
quire a  bond  from  those  receiving  licenses  of  ten  pounds  each, 
the  same  to  be  forfeited  if  they  did  not  "keep  good  order 
according  to  law." 


iEARLY  GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT. 


Chapter  IY. 

Ill  July,  1647,  died  the  Rev.  Thomas  Hooker,  "  the  father 
and  pillar  of  the  American  churches" — "  than  wliom  no  more 
ilhistrions  mind  came  from  the  mother  country  to  New  Eng- 
land." (Centennial  Papers,  p.  157.)  During  his  lifetime, 
owing  perhaps  to  his  personal  influence  and  commanding 
abilities,  there  was  nothing  to  disturb  the  concord  and  mutual 
confidence  which  prevailed  in  the  meeting-houses  and  among 
the  faithful.  But  erelong  the  peace  was  rudely  broken,  and 
bitter  strife  took  its  place.  It  began  in  the  church  at  Hartford, 
one  of  the  most  enlightened  and  exemplary  in  New  England, 
then  in  charge  of  Rev.  Samuel  Stone.  Elder  Goodwin  com- 
plained that  a  "member  had  been  admitted,  or  baptism  admin- 
istered" in  a  way  "  inconsistent  with  the  rights  of  the  brother- 
hood, and  the  strict  principles  of  the  Congregational  churches." 
Dr.  Trumbull,  a  man  of  charity,  thinks  he  may  have  imagined 
himself  not  properly  consulted  (i,  311).  The  controversy 
inflamed  and  divided  the  church,  and  soon  spread  to  the 
neighboring  churches.  The  Avliole  people  were  maddened  by 
the  conflict,  as  if  their  religious  institutions  were  in  instant 
peril.  Prejudice,  passion,  the  pride  of  opinion,  and  the  desire 
to  vancpiish,  as  usual,  mingled  in  the  strife,  and  hindered  rec- 
onciliation. In  1654  and  1655,  or  about  that  time,  several 
councils  of  the  neighboring  elders  and  churches  were  called, 
without  effect.  In  this  emergency,  certain  elders  of  the  Bay 
volunteered  assistance,  and  at  a  later  date  they  or  others  came 
to  Hartford,  but  accomplished  nothing.  "  The  parties  became 
more  alienated  and  embittered  than  before."  Governor  Web- 
ster, Mr.  Whiting,  Captain  Cullick,  Mr.  Steele,  Andrew  Bacon, 
and  other  influential  gentlemen  of  Hartford  took  the  side  of 
Mr.  Goodwin.  The  latter  and  his  aggrieved  associates  esteem- 
ing themselves  the  defenders  of  true  Congregationalism,  as 
they  were  refused  dismission,  withdrew  from  the  church.  Mr. 
Stone  is  said  to  have  had  Presbyterian  proclivities. 
6 


74  EARLY  GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT. 

All  along,  tlie  Assembly  had  viewed  the  controversy  with 
intense  interest,  and  on  several  occasions,  in  a  sorrowful  spirit, 
had  suggested  measures  which,  it  was  hoped,  would  lead  to  a 
settlement.  But  when  the  "  withdrawers"  proposed  to  unite 
with  the  Wethersfield  church,  the  Court  set  up  its  authority, 
and  forbade  further  proceedings  in  that  direction.  It  also 
ordered  a  cessation  of  hostilities,  understood  to  be  of  a  disci- 
plinary character,  on  the  part  of  the  Hartford  church,  "  till 
the  matters  in  dispute  could  be  brought  to  an  issue  in  the  way 
the  Court  might  determine."  This  was  in  March,  1658.  As 
if  a  permanent  separation  and  a  second  church  were  appre- 
hended, certain  acts  already  referred  to  {ante,  p.  354)  were 
passed,  forbidding  the  setting  up  or  entertaining  and  attending 
any  church  or  church  administration  without  the  approbation 
of  the  General  Court  and  neighboring  churches. 

At  the  next  session,  a  few  days  later,  Mr.  Stone  and  the 
church  on  one  side,  and  the  opposition  on  the  other,  were  de- 
sired to  meet  in  private  conference,  in  company  with  the 
Governor  and  Deputy  Governor  (Winthrop  and  Wells),  and 
endeavor  to  adjust  their  unhappy  differences.  If  they  could 
not  agree,  letters  were  to  be  sent  to  the  elders  at  the  Bay  and 
others,  asking  their  advice  as  to  "  what  the  Court  should  do  in 
the  premises."  At  about  the  same  time,  Mr.  Stone  presented 
a  petition  with  a  request  that  certain  questions,  which  were 
named,  might  "  be  reasoned  syllogistically  before  the  honored 
Court,"  he  and  the  dissatisHed  brethren  to  argue  "face  to 
face."  He  affirmed  that  the  malcontents  were  still  members 
of  his  church ;  that  their  "  sin  was  exceeding  scandalous  and 
dreadful,"  and  that  the  controversy  was  "  not  in  the  hands  of 
the  churches  to  be  determined  by  them  ;"  meaning,  I  suppose, 
that  his  church  would  not  willingly  submit  to  outside  inter- 
ference.    (Conn.  Col.  Eec,  i,  317.) 

Though  foiled,  hitherto,  in  every  attempt  to  secure  peace, 
the  General  Court  was  not  discouraged,  nor  seemingly  annoyed 
that  its  advice  was  unheeded.  It  was  probably  too  much 
grieved  to  be  provoked  by  the  refractory  spirit  exhibited. 
Preferring  persuasion  to  authority,  but  using  whichever  prom- 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  75 

ised  most,  it  went  on  with  its  endea^vors.  In  August,  1658,  a 
vote  was  passed  requiring  '^  each  party  to  choose  three  elders, 
as  able  and  indifferent  as  the  times  will  afford,  before  whom 
(the  questions  having  been  beforehand  plainly  stated)  the  case 
shall  be  publicly  disputed,  to  the  issuing  of  the  controversy 
according  to  Clod."  The  elders  were  to  give  what  light  they 
could,  and  both  parties  to  submit  to  their  decision.  If  either 
refused  to  choose,  the  Court  was  to  act  for  it.  Tlie  withdrawers 
named  Mr.  Davenport,  Mr.  Norton,  and  Mr.  Fitch.  The 
church  refusing  to  choose,  the  Court  named  Mr.  Cobbet,  Mr. 
Mitchell,  and  Mr.  Danforth.  The  council  was  to  meet  in 
Hartford  on  the  seventeenth  of  September  following.  At  the 
same  session,  the  eighth  of  September  was  appointed  as  a  day 
of  '*  humiliation  to  implore  the  favor  of  God  "  on  account  "  of 
the  intemperate  season,  thin  harvest,  sore  visitation  by  sick- 
ness in  several  plantations,*  and  the  sad,  prolonged  differences 
that  yet  remain  unreconciled  in  the  churches  and  plantations ; 
and  that  (-rod  would  succeed  the  means  appointed  for  the  heal- 
ing of  the  aforesaid  differences." 

This  council,  says  Dr.  Trumbull,  never  convened,  owing 
apparently  to  the  contumacy  of  the  parties  interested ;  so  the 
baffled  Court,  after  further  fruitless  endeavors  to  secure  acqui- 
escence in  its  plans,  concluded,  in  March,  1659,  to  act  independ- 
ently. Without  heeding  opposition,  it  proceeded  to  call  a 
council  in  its  own  name,  asking  the  churches  to  send  "their 
ablest  instruments."  The  questions  at  issue  were  to  be  publicly 
disputed,  while  those  opposed  to  the  movement  could  be  repre- 
sented or  not,  as  they  chose.  In  either  event,  the  parties  were, 
as  on  previous  and  subsequent  occasions,  to  share  the  expense 
between  them. 

Elders  and  messengers  from  several  of  the  more  prominent 
churches  of  Connecticut,  Massachusetts,  and  New  Haven,  assem- 

*  During  the  summer  of  1658  much  sickness  prevailed.  Governor 
Winthrop  and  his  wife  were  "very  ill"  in  Hartford.  In  New  Haven, 
where  the  disease  was  of  an  intermittent  character,  Mrs.  Davenport  was 
among  the  afflicted.  The  distemper  also  raged  in  Norwalk,  Fairfield, 
Mashpeag,  among  the  Dutch  in  Manhadoes,  and  on  Long  Island,  where 
the  Indians  suffered  greatly.     (See  Bacon's  Hist.  Discourses,  373-5.) 


Y6         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OP  CONNECTICUT. 

bled  in  Hartford  in  June.  Tliej  "  were  abundant  in  their 
labors,"  and  successful,  not  in  healing  the  breach,  but  in 
softening  prejudices,  soothing  excited  feelings,  and  bringing 
friends  long  estranged  nearer  together  than  they  had  been  for 
years.  The  Assembly  was  so  much  pleased  with  the  result 
that,  at  its  session  in  June,  another  meeting  of  the  council  was 
requested  in  August  (1659),  "to  whose  decisive  power"  the 
withdrawers  were  required  to  submit,  the  church  "  freely  en- 
gaging" to  do  so.  In  the  way  of  preparation,  a  day  of  '' sol- 
emn humiliation,  partly  for  England  [Richard  Cromwell  had 
abdicated],  partly  for  our  own  selves,  partly  for  the  season,"  and 
in  part  for  '^  the  council,  that  God  would  bless  their  labors,"  was 
appointed.  That  reverend  body  met  in  due  season,  and  was 
again,  to  a  certain  extent,  successful ;  but  in  the  mean  time 
Grovenior  Webster  and  fifty-nine  others,  weary  of  the  quarrel, 
had  signed  an  agreement,  dated  April  18,  1659,  binding  them- 
selves "to  remove  into  the  jurisdiction  of  Massachusetts." 
About  two-thirds  or  more  of  the  number,  including  Webster 
and  Goodwin,  a,nd  a  dissatisfied  company  from  Wethersfield, 
did  finally  (in  1659,  says  Chapin)  remove,  settling  Hadley  in 
Massachusetts  (see  Hinman's  First  Puritan  Settlers,  pp. 
92,  158) ;  but  a  separation,  owning  to  the  improved  temper  of 
the  combatants,  and  perhaps  to  the  apprehended  effects  of  the 
removals  on  the  temporal  welfare  of  the  churcli,  was  for  the 
time  prevented.  Full  of  gratitude  for  the  success  of  the  coun- 
cil and  for  other  blessings,  the  Court  at  its  session  in  IN^ovem- 
ber,  designated  the  last  day  of  the  month  (Wednesday)  as  a 
day  of  public  thanksgiving. 

The  controversy  in  the  Hartford  church  was  continued  under 
Whiting  and  Haynes,  the  successors  of  Mr.  Stone,  Whiting  sym- 
pathizing with  the  rigid  Webster,  Goodwin,  and  others ;  Haynes 
and  a  majority  of  the  church  with  the  more  liberal  views  of 
the  innovating  Stone.  The  final  result  was  the  division  of  the 
church  in  October,  1669,  Mr.  Whiting,  on  petition,  being 
allowed  by  the  Court  "  to  walk  distinct,"  and  "  practice  in  the 
Congregational  way  without  disturbance."  Four  out  of  nine 
assistants,  and  fourteen  out  of  thirty -three  deputies  (if  all  were 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         77 

present),  voted  against  this  act  of  indulgence.  (Conn.  Col. 
Rec,  ii,  120.)  An  act  bad  previously  (May,  1669)  given  liberty 
to  all  persons  '^  approved  according  to  law  as  ortbodox  and 
sound  in  tbe  fundamentals  of  tbe  Cbristian  religion  to  bave 
allowance  of  tbeir  persuasion  and  profession  in  cburcb  ways  or 
assemblies  witbout  disturbance."  (Conn.  Col.  Rec,  ii,  109.) 
Tbis  act,  designed  apparently  to  prepare  tbe  way  for  divisions 
of  tbe  cburcbes  of  Hartford  and  Windsor  (wbicb  were  formally 
autborized  at  tbe  October  session),  seems  to  bave  been  misun- 
derstood by  Mr.  Hollister  in  bis  History.  He  regards  it  as  a 
general  act  of  toleration,  giving  dissatisfied  persons  liberty  to 
dissent  "  from  tbe  Congregational  or  establisbed  religion,"  pro- 
vided "  tbey  sbould  conduct  tbemselves  peaceably,  and  sbould 
be  Cbristians."  Tbey  (tbe  colonists),  be  continues,  "were  will- 
ing to  tolerate  peaceable  Cbristians,  and  passed  an  act  to  em- 
brace tbem  all."  Under  tbis  law,  be  repeats,  "  all  denomina- 
tions were  allowed  to  worsbip  God  in  tbeir  own  way,  provided 
tbey  did  not  commit  a  breacb  of  tbe  peace."  (Hist.  Conn.,  ii, 
528-9.)     Tbe  facts  are  widely  different. 

Tbe  Hartford  controversy,  if  measured  by  its  duration  and 
tbe  wide-spread  commotion  it  occasioned,  or  by  tbe  perverse- 
ness,  embittered  feeling,  and  eminent  respectability  of  those 
who  took  part  in  it,  was  tbe  most  memorable  of  its  time.  It 
introduced  contention  and  disorder  into  all  the  churches,  and 
entered  into  tbe  aifairs  of  tbe  towns  and  of  the  whole  people. 
Nobody,  not  even  the  renowned  Cotton  Mather,  or  those  who 
were  living  at  the  time,  have  told  us  exactly  what  it  was  about, 
or  bow  it  began,  except  that  in  some  way  it  related  to  "  tbe 
qualifications  for  baptism  and  church -membership,  and  the 
rights  of  the  brotherhood."  (Trumbull,  i,  322.)  According 
to  the  imaginative,  often  quoted  Mather,  "  from  tbe  fire  of  the 
altar  there  issued  thunderings,  and  lightnings,,  and  earthquakes 
throughout  the  Colony."  It  is  not  necessary  to  call  in  ques- 
tion the  honesty  of  either  side  in  the  controversy.  Zeal,  as  all 
admit,  was  superfiuously  abundant.  (For  interesting  papers 
relating  to  the  Hartford  C^ontroversy,  edited  by  Mr.  Trumbull, 
see  Coll.  Conn.  Hist.  Society,  vol.  ii.) 


/ 


78  EARLY   GOVEENMENT   OF    CONNECTICUT. 

The  clmrch  at  Wethersfield  took  a  deep  interest  in  the  Hart- 
ford dispute.  Only  four  miles  away,  it  could  not  well  hold 
itself  aloof.  It  became  "divided  and  contentious."  John 
Ilollister  and  others  made  complaint  to  the  General  Court  in 
March,  1658,  that  their  minister,  Mr.  Russell,  had  brought 
great  scandal  on  the  church,  and  that  they  were  "  affraid  to 
venture  their  souls  under  his  ministry."  They  asked  liberty  to 
procure  another  minister.  The  Court  thought  Mr.  Russell 
censurable,  but  not  as  bad  as  represented.  It  therefore  denied 
the  request,  and  advised  the  hostile  parties  to  ""  walk  lovingly 
together,"  which  they  were  careful  not  to  do.  In  March  fol- 
lowing, Lt.  Hollister  had  been  excommunicated  without  receiv- 
ing a  copy  of  the  charges  against  him.  After  reproving  Mr. 
Russell  for  disregarding  the  practices  of  the  churches,  the  Court 
ordered  a  committee  "  to  desire,  and  if  need  be,  require  of  him 
and  his  church  the  particular  charges  or  offenses  for  which  Mr. 
Ilollister  was  censured."  In  March,  1661,  when  "a  large 
majority  of  tlfe  members  of  the  church  had  removed  to  Hadley  " 
(see  Chapin's  Glastenbury,  p.  36),  certain  persons  claimed  that 
the  church  had  become  extinct,  but  the  General  Court  settled 
this  matter  by  declaring  "  that  the  said  church  is  the  true  and 
undoubted  church  of  Wethersfield,  and  so  to  be  accounted  and 
esteemed." 

The  people  of  Middletown  were  dissatisfied  with  Mr.  Samuel 
Stow,  their  minister.  The  Court,  discovering  "  the  unsuitable- 
ness  of  their  spirits,"  in  October,  1660,  gave  them  "  free  liberty 
to  provide  for  themselves  another  able,  orthodox,  and  pious 
minister,  as  soon  as  they  could,  he  to  be  approved  by  Mr. 
Warham,  Mr.  Stone,  and  Mr.  Whiting,  taking  in  the  help  of 
the  worshipful  Governor  (Winthrop),  and  Mr.  Willis."  When 
this  had  been  done,  Mr.  Stow  was  directed  "  to  lay  down  his 
preaching  there ;"  but  till  a  substitute  was  obtained,  the  town 
was  ordered  to  pay  his  salary,  he  continuing  his  ministry.  In 
March  following,  Mr.  Stow's  people  were  declared  to  be  "  free 
from  him  as  their  engaged  minister,"  l)ut  they  were  ordered  to 
give  him  "  letters  testimonial,"  and  forty  pounds  for  his  labor 
the  year  previous.  Meanwhile  he  had  liberty  to  preach  to 
those  who  would  hear  him  till  another  minister  was  obtained. 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  79 

Having  reached  an  advanced  age,  Mr.  Warhani,  of  Windsor, 
desired  a  colleague.  Many  candidates  were  invited  to  preach, 
but  tlie  people  could  not  agree.  There  were  always  two  par- 
ties, an^l  none  could  please  both.  If  one  approved,  the  other 
violently  opposed.  Heated  controversy  and  ill-temper  followed. 
(Trumbull,  i,  485.)  Apparently  there  was  only  sufficient  relig- 
ion in  the  quarrel  to  rouse  the  feelings  and  give  edge  to  the 
temper,  not  enough  to  inspire  with  the  grace  of  charity.  As 
they  refused  advice,  the  General  Assembly  felt  constrained  to 
interfere.  In  October,  1667,  when  Mr.  Nathaniel  Chauncy 
occupied  tlie  pulpit,  it  "  desired  and  required "  that  the  free- 
men and  householders  of  the  town  should  meet  and  bring  in 
their  votes  to  Mr.  Henry  Wolcott  for  a  minister,  the  "  written 
papers"  to  be  counted  for  Mr.  Chauncy,  the  blanks  against 
him,  all  present  to  forbear  discourse  which  "  may  provoke  and 
disturb  each  others  spirits."  Out  of  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
eight  votes,  Mr.  Chauncy  had  eigiity-six.  Immediately  the 
minority  petitioned  for  liberty  to  have  a  minister  of  their  own. 
It  was  granted  on  condition  that  they  procured  an  able,  ortho- 
dox one  whom  the  Assembly  should  approve.  The  other  side 
had  permission  to  settle  Mr.  Chauncy.  As  the  result  a  second 
society  was  formed. 

Soon  after,  Mr  Benjamin  Woodbridge  appeared  in  Windsor, 
and  in  October,  1668,  had  "  liberty  to  keep  a  lecture  there  once 
a  fortnight,  on  the  fourth  day  of  the  week  ....  and  not  on 
the  Sabbath  without  liberty  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Warham."  At 
the  same  time  a  committee  of  four  eminent  elders  was  appointed 
to  hear  both  sides,  and  at  the  conclusion  "  to  settle  an  accommo- 
dation between  the  church  and  the  dissenting  brethren,"  if  this 
were  possible.  Nothing  was  accomplished.  Both  ministers 
continued  to  preach,  and  the  battle  raged  for  twelve  yeare 
more.  In  October,  1680,  the  Court,  considering  the  "sorrow- 
ful condition  "  and  "  bleeding  state  "  of  the  people  of  Windsor, 
concluded  "  to  exert  its  authority  ....  and  put  a  stop  to  the 
troubles  there."  It  ordered  that  the  two  societies  should  unite, 
that  both  the  ministei*8  be  released  from  fui'ther  service,  that  a 
new  one,  orthodox  and  al)le,  should  be  procured,  and  that  who- 


80         EAKLY  GOVEKNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

ever  hindered  or  opposed  would  do  so  at  his  peril.  This  exer- 
cise of  undisputed  power  closed  the  war.  Mr.  Samuel  Mather 
was  called,  and  after  two  years  ordained  as  the  minister  of  the 
town.  The  Assembly  gave  some  directions  about  admissions  to 
the  church,  and  then  told  the  people  that  it  "  expected  that  no 
trouble  would  be  given  by  any  person  or  persons,  and  that  all 
would  quietly  attend  Mr.  Mather's  ministry,"  contribute  to  his 
maintenance,  and  give  him  encouragement.  (Conn.  Col.  Rec, 
iii,  104.)  They  obeyed,  and  "harmony  and  brotlierly  affec- 
tion "  returned.     (Trumbull,  i,  497.) 

In  October,  1669,  the  Assembly  having  heard  that  the  people 
of  E-ye,  then  included  within  the  limits  of  Connecticut,  had 
no  orthodox  minister,  and  took  no  care  to  obtain  one  to  "  in- 
struct them  in  the  ways  and  will  of  God,"  seeming  content  "  in 
the  improvement  of  John  Coe  and  Marmaduke  Smith,  persons 
unsound  and  heterodox  in  their  judgments,  if  not  scandalous  in 
their  lives,"  authorized  Nathan  Gold  and  three  others  to  call 
before  them  the  persons  named,  or  any  other  in  the  town,  and, 
if  the  facts  were  as  represented,  to  take  effectual  measures  to 
prevent  the  sowing  of  the  seeds  of  error  there.  They  were 
also  to  inform  the  settlei'S  that  if  they  did  not  take  counsel  of 
prudence,  and  make  provision  for  a  suitable  minister,  "  sound, 
orthodox,  and  apt  to  teach  " — a  man  approved  by  Mr.  Bishop, 
Mr.  Handf  ord,  and  Mr.  Eliphalet  Jones — the  Court  was  resolved 
itself  to  procure  and  settle  one,  and  at  the  next  session  order 
his  maintenance  by  them.  A  year  later  the  threat  had  not  been 
executed,  and  the  County  Court  of  Fairfield  was  authorized  to 
settle  the  right  man,  to  order  his  support,  and  coerce  the  pay- 
ment of  his  salary.  Still  later,  Captain  Nathan  Gold  and  others 
were  desired  to  do  the  same  work,  and  "  endeavor  a  comforta- 
ble composure  and  issue  of  such  differences  as  are  among  the  peo- 
ple." They  were  to  allow  the  preacher  forty  pounds  per  annum. 
Notwithstanding  the  efforts  made,  the  pulpit  of  Rye  seems  to 
have  continued  vacant,  and  in  May,  1674,  the  Court  desired 
Mr.  Eliphalet  Jones  ''  to  dispense  the  word  of  God  once  a  fort- 
night on  the  Lord's  day,"  and  in  October  of  the  same  year 
Captain  John  Allen  and  others  were  to  endeavor  to  obtain  a 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF   CONNECTICUT.  81 

minister  for  Rye.  In  May  of  tlie  next  year,  Major  Nathan 
Gold,  Major  Robert  Treat,  and  Mr.  John  Burr  were  "  to  treat 
with  the  inhabitants  of  Rye,  and  labor  to  accommodate  mat- 
ters so  that  Mr.  Prudden  might  be  settled  there."  In  1677, 
Mr.  Thomas  Denham,  recommended  by  the  ministers  of  Fair- 
tield  and  Stamford,  was  "  likely  to  settle."  At  a  later  date,  the 
last  was  to  be  paid  the  thirty  pounds  per  annum  due  him  for 
his  service,  and  Mr.  Prudden  ten  pounds  for  his  preaching. 

It  should  l)e  noticed  that  the  Assembly,  in  dealing  with  the 
churches  addressed  itself  directly  to  the  towns,  or  the  people 
of  the  towns,  there  being  at  first  no  ecclesiastical  societies  dis- 
tinct from  the  latter.  All  the  inhabitants  and  legal  residents 
of  the  towns  were  members  of  the  congregation,  and  under 
the  supervision  of  the  minister  and  church  officers.  The 
meeting-h<>use  was  built  and  the  preacher  paid  by  the  town. 

For  several  reasons  I  have  given  this  brief  account  of  the 
earlier  controversies  in  the  churches  of  Connecticut.  Having 
undertaken  to  govern  themselves  on  the  congregational  or 
independent  plan,  I  wished  to  show  the  measure  of  their  suc- 
cess. More  especially  I  desired  to  set  forth,  in  detail,  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  law-makers  when  discharging  their  constitu- 
tional duty  "to  preserve  the  liberty  and  purity  of  the  gospel, 
and  the  discipline  of  the  churches."  It  will  be  observed  that 
the  Assembly,  though  capricious,  was  not  often  arbitrary,  and 
did  not  use  more  than  a  fraction  of  the  power  with  which  it 
was  invested.  Seemingly,  without  taking  sides,  or  yielding  to 
the  influence  of  prejudice  or  passion,  it  acted  the  part  of 
pacificator,  endeavoring  always  to  secure  moderation,  peace, 
union,  and  the  good  of  all.  Clearly,  it  did  not  desire  to  run 
the  churches ;  did  not  in  an  officious  or  meddlesome  way  inter- 
fere with  their  internal  management ;  but  was  ever  ready  to 
arrest  by  its  authority  any  revolutionary  or  erratic  movement — 
any  which  in  its  judgment  was  destructive  of  the  purity  of  the 
gospel  and  the  permanent  welfare  of  the  churches.  It  was 
tolerant,  sorrowful,  dejected,  when  those  of  the  same  faith  quar- 
relled, but  fiercely  intolerant  when  religious  error — "heter- 
odoxy and   unsoundness" — appeared,    or   separation  was  pro- 


82         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

posed.  Ill  several  cases  its  wisdom,  discretion,  and  decision 
apparently  averted  grave  disaster.  On  the  whole,  I  cannot 
but  think  that  the  restraints  it  imposed,  and  the  coercive 
measures  it  occasionally  and  reluctantly  adopted,  at  an  early 
and  critical  period  of  Congregational  history,  were  conserva- 
tive, salutary,  needful.  Without  the  exercise  of  some  kind  of 
authority  which  all  respected,  there  was  danger  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal anarchy,  ending  possibly  in  ecclesiastical  despotism.  Had 
the  churches  and  the  eager  disputants  who  were  rending  them 
been  as  wise  and  forbearing,  peace,  no  doubt,  would  have  been 
restored  at  an  earlier  date  and  at  smaller  sacrifice. 

During  the  pendency  of  the  absorbing  question  relative  to 
the  Union  under  the  Charter  of  1062,  the  Connecticut  Court 
discontinued  its  efforts  to  secure  harmony  in  the  churches.  It 
did  so,  as  I  infer,  that  it  might  give  no  unnecessary  offense  to 
Mr.  Davenpoi-t  and  his  friends,  who  strenuously  resisted  the 
proposed  innovations,  and  the  measures  which  were  leading  to 
them.  The  New  Haven  divine  (autocrat,  I  was  about  to  say) 
was  a  powerful  antagonist,  and  prudence  dictated  that  per- 
turbing church  questions  should  be  kept  in  the  background  till 
the  more  pressing  one  which  related  to  the  Union  had  been 
settled. 

In  the  mean  time,  however,  the  Assembly  ventured  to  make 
an  experiment,  hoping  thereby,  probably,  to  draw  out  the  views 
of  the  clergy  on  the  proposed  change  in  the  practice  of  the 
churches.  In  answer  to  a  "  writing"  or  petition  presented  at 
the  October  session,  1664,  it  invited  "  the  ministers  and  churches 
to  consider  whether  it  be  not  their  duty  to  entertain  [or  re- 
ceive] all  persons  of  an  honest  and  godly  conversation,  [etc.]  in 
church  fellowship,  and  that  they  have  their  children  baptized," 
the  latter  when  grown  up  and  duly  qualified  to  be  admitted  to 
full  communion.  It  also  desired  that  the  churches  "  would  be 
pleased  to  consider  whether  it  be  not  the  duty  of  the  Court  to 
order  the  churches  to  practice  according  to  the  premises,  if 
they  do  not  practice  without  such  an  order."  If  any  dissented, 
or  in  other  words  were  opposed  to  the  "  half-way  covenant" 
privileges,  so-called,  they  were  requested  to  help  the  Assembly 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  83 

witli  siicli  light  as  was  in  them.  Tliey  did  dissent,  and  the 
law-makers,  liaving  made  known  their  '{)reference8,  with  ex- 
emplary modesty  subsided.  They  had  no  thought  of  crowd- 
ing or  crossing  their  spiritual  leaders,  or  in  any  way  pressing 
their  own  views. 

The  Union  having  been  made  secure,  the  Court  again  gave 
its  particular  attention  to  the  distracted  condition  of  the 
churches.  It  resolved,  if  possible,  to  put  an  end  to  contro- 
versy, and  in  October,  1666,  with  more  spirit  than  usual, 
ordered  that  a  synod  should  be  called,  and  when  met  that  "  the 
questions  presented  should  be  publicly  debated  to  an  issue." 
It  further  ordered  that  "  all  the  preaching  elders  and  ministers" 
of  i\\Q  Colony  should  be  sent  as  members.  Mr.  Mitchell,  Mr. 
Brown,  Mr.  Sherman,  and  Mr.  Glover,  of  Massachusetts,  who 
were  expected  to  favor  the  wishes  of  the  Assembly,  were  desired 
to  be  present  and  give  assistance.  The  questions  to  be  disputed 
were  stated  by  the  Court,  but  no  attempt  was  made  to  inter- 
fere with  the  freedom  of  discussion  ;  no  hint  given  as  to  the 
decision  which  was  wanted  and  would  be  accepted.  Not  quite 
accurate  is  the  statement  by  a  distinguished  author  that  the 
convention  was  designed  to  be  used  as  a  means  "  to  farce  the 
new  system  into  operation."  (Contributions  to  the  Ecclesiasti- 
cal History  of  Connecticut,  p.  27.) 

The  ministers  were  ready  to  obey  the  order  to  convene,  but 
were  not  willing  that  their  meeting  should  be  called  a  synod, 
or  be  invested  with  sy nodical  powers,  on  the  ground  appar- 
ently that  the  independence  of  the  churches  was  threatened. 
(Trumbull,  i,  481.)  The  Court,  convinced  of  its  mistake,  saw 
"  cause  to  vary  the  title,"  and  named  the  proposed  synod  "  an 
assembly  of  the  ministers  of  the  Colony."  The  change,  no 
doubt,  was  acceptable  to  the  clergy,  but  not  as  much  so  to  the 
government.  If  anywhere  there  was  coercion,  the  law-makers 
were  the  coerced  party.  The  reverend  body  with  its  new^ 
name  met  in  May,  1667,  voted  not  to  debate  the  questions  pro- 
posed as  required,  and  adjourned  till  autumn.  The  majority 
of  the  members  would  not  adopt  or  approve  the  inno^'ating 
practices  which  the  civil  authority  wished  introduced. 


84         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

*'  The  churches  continued  in  their  former  strict  method  of 
admitting  members  to  their  communion,  and  maintained  their 
right  to  choose  their  ministers,  witliout  any  control  from  the 
towns  or  parishes.  ...  It  was  insisted,  as  necessary  to  the  bap- 
tism of  children,  that  one  of  the  parents  at  least  should  be  a 
member  in  full  communion  with  the  church."  "  Owning  the 
covenant,"  so-called,  gave  the  applicant  no  privilege.  (Trum- 
bull, i,  482.) 

As  no  change  of  opinion  was  expeeted  at  the  adjourned 
meeting,  and  as  a  profitless  conflict  might  be  the  result,  the 
Assembly  was  afraid  of  it,  and  seemingly  hedged  to  prevent  it. 
It  had  the  exclusive  right  to  make  all  the  laws,  civil  and  eccle- 
siastical, but  for  suflicient  reasons  refused  to  use  its  power  in 
opposition  to  the  orthodox  ministers.  The  indulgence  which 
it  extended  to  that  class  was  in  striking  contrast  with  its  treat- 
ment of  other  classes,  especially  when  religious  error  was 
charged.  Conscience  outside  of  the  established  faith  had  no 
rightful  authority,  and  imposed  no  limit  on  legislation. 

After  having  made  another  half-hearted  and  futile  attempt 
to  convene  a  general  council  to  settle  "  matters  of  faith  and 
order,"  in  accordance  with  a  recommendation  of  the  Commis- 
sioners of  the  United  Colonies,  the  General  Court  was  at  length 
convinced  that  the  clergy  would  yield  nothing  willingly.  They 
would  not  give  up  their  matured  opinions,  nor  change  their 
ancient  practice  at  the  dictation  of  councils,  synods,  ecclesi- 
astical assemblies,  or  any  outside  authority.  Conceding  for 
the  moment  the  independence  of  the  churches  individually,  the 
Court,  weary  of  dissension  and  disorder,  tried  another  plan.  In 
May,  1668,  it  "  desired  Rev.  James  Fitcli,  of  l^orwich,  Mr. 
Gershom  Bulkley,  of  Wethersfield,  Mr.  Joseph  Eliot,  of  Guil- 
ford, and  Mr.  Samuel  Wakeman,  of  Fairfield,  to  meet  at  Say- 
brook"  in  June  following,  "to  consider  some  expedient  for 
peace,  and  how  the  churches  and  people  may  walk  together 
within  themselves  and  one  with  another  in  the  fellowship  and 
order  of  the  gospel,  notwithstanding  some  apprehensions  among 
them  in  matters  of  discipline  respecting  membership  and  bap- 
tism," etc.     Apparently,  it  longed  for   peace  at  almost  any 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         85 

price ;  was  anxious  that  tlie  churches  should,  among  them- 
selves, consider  and  adopt  some  scheme  to  secure  it,  and  was 
quite  willing  to  sacrifice  its  own  preferences  if  hy  so  doing  that 
happy  end  could  l)e  attained.  The  committee  reported  in 
May,  1669  (report  on  file),  and  at  the  same  session  the  Assem- 
bly passed  the  remarkable  vote  (elsewhere  qiloted  in  full), 
allowing  certain  persons  of  worth  and  piety,  "orthodox  and 
sound  according  to  law,  to  have  allowance  of  their  persuasion 
and  profession  in  church  ways,"  etc.  This  enactment.  Dr. 
Bacon  says,  "  appears  to  have  been  intended  as  a  compromise." 
(Contributions  to  tlie  Eccles.  Hist,  of  Conn.,  p.  27.)  It  seems 
to  me  to  be  a  general  act  of  indulgence,  permitting  all,  on  cer- 
tain conditions  and  within  the  prescribed  limits,  whatever  their 
views,  to  enjoy  their  opinions  "  without  disturbance."  Presum- 
ably, its  authors  had  in  mind  the  impending  or  threatened  dis- 
ruptions of  the  Hartford  and  Windsor  churches,  which  were 
authorized  at  the  October  session  of  the  same  year.  Consid- 
ered in  this  light,  the  act  has  special  significance  and  does 
hojior  to  the  heads  and  hearts  of  those  who  framed  and  passed  it. 

Though  a  majority  of  the  clergy  for  a  long  time  opposed  the 
lower  standard  of  qualifications  for  baptism  and  church  fellow- 
ship, they  at  length,  when  left  wholly  to  themselves  (the  Gen- 
eral Court  having  abandoned  its  attempts  to  unite  them  in  some 
plan  for  self-government),  began  to  think  better  of  the  "  new 
way,"  and  at  the  close  of  the  century  had  adopted  the  practices 
they  previously  condemned.  Under  the  old  dispensation,  "  the 
number  of  chiirch-members  in  full  comnmnion  was  generally 
small,  and  where  owning  of  tlie  covenant  was  not  practiced, 
great  numbers  of  children  were  not  baptized."  A  revolution, 
in  these  particulars,  followed  the  change — a  revolution  with  dis- 
astrous results,  as  many  contend. 

It  has  l)een  claimed  that  the  civil  government  was  "  meddle- 
some" in  its  dealings  with  the  churches,  and  "  constantl}'  per- 
nicious "  in  its  influence.  I  have  read  the  record  to  little  pur- 
pose if  the  facts  do  not  warrant  a  different  conclusion.  As  an 
illustration  of  its  treatment  of  individual  churches,  take  the 
case  of  the  Hartford  controversy.     It  began  in  the  church,  and 


86         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

with  no  outside  interference  raged  tiercely,  till  it  became  evi- 
dent that  there  was  no  power  inside  to  control  excesses  or 
limit  the  mischief.  When  the  General  Court  was  appealed  to, 
in  May,  1656,  for  a  redress  of  grievances,  it  did  nothing  but 
appoint  a  committee  of  the  highest  officers  of  the  government 
"to  advise  with  the  elders"  of  the  Colony,  and  "to  crave  their 
help  and  assistance  "  in  the  emergency.  It  took  no  step,  ap23ar- 
ently,  without  consultation  with  the  ministers,  and  was  always 
anxious  to  devise  some  way  by  which  the  churches  could, 
among  themselves,  settle  their  disputes.  Seeking  to  attain  the 
desired  end  in  this  way,  it  called  council  after  council,  and  at 
length  required  the  warring  factions  to  submit  to  the  decision 
or  advice  of  mutual  friends.  It  did  not  endeavor  to  enforce  its 
own  judgments,  and  forbore  to  use  its  constitutional  right  till 
the  "  withdrawers"  were  about  to  take  a  step  which  was  deemed 
revolutionary,  if  not  fatal.  Promptly,  it  interposed,  and  by 
its  authority  stopped  the  movement,  without  harming  anybody. 
No  doubt  the  Court  was  annoyed  by  the  frequent  appeals' 
made  to  it  as  the  final  tribunal  by  the  parties  involved  in 
church  quarrels,  and  to  escape  a  difficult  duty  was  quite  willing 
to  transfer  its  jurisdiction  and  responsibility  to  some  other 
body  better  fitted  to  discharge  the  function  of  ecclesiastical 
government.  At  length,  when  the  voluntary  system  had 
broken  down ;  when  associations  of  ministers,  councils,  and 
conferences  had  proved  impotent,  and  tlie  churches  had  run 
into  great  confusion  and  disorder,  the  Assembly,  with  the  sup- 
port or  general  acquiescence  of  the  clergy  and  people,  again 
interposed.  In  May,  1708,  it  appointed  a  synod,  ratified  the 
Saybrook  Platform  which  was  the  result  of  its  deliberations, 
and  transferred  to  the  "  General  Association^of  Connecticut " 
so  much  of  its  authority  as  was  deemed  needful  for  the  interna] 
government  and  discipline  of  the  churches,  and  the  prompt  and 
peaceful  settlement  of  dangerous  controversies  and  contentions. 
Thenceforth  the  General  Court  was  relieved  of  many  perplex- 
ing duties  and  annoyances,  but  it  still  considered  itself  at  the 
head  of  the  ecclesiastical  system,  and  did  not  lose  sight  of  its 
obligation  to  protect  the  churches  and  preserve  the  faith. 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         87 


Chapter  Y. 

For  a  long  period  after  its  settlement  Connecticut  was  not 
harassed  l)y  dissenters  from  the  established  religion.  Its  re- 
mote and  secluded  situation,  away  from  the  seaports,  the  inlets 
of  mischief,  doubtless  saved  it  from  some  of  the  annoyances 
which  tried  the  temper  and  more  than  once  nearly  wrecked 
the  reputation  of  Massachusetts.  Tor  the  first  twenty  years  it 
had  no  law  against  that  class  of  disturbers,  the  fact  proving 
that  there  was  no  occasion  for  any.  But  in  July,  1656,  two 
Quakers  (women),  and  soon  after  two  others  (man  and  woman), 
were  landed  at  the  Bay.  They  appeared  (not  unexpectedly) 
soon  after  a  public  fast  had  been  held  there,  partly  on  account 
of  the  alarming  errors  which  that  ^'accursed  and  pernicious 
sect"  was  propagating  in  England.  That  Colony  was  pro- 
foundly agitated.  The  new-comers  were  turbulent  and  fanat- 
ical, insulting  magistrates  and  reviling  ministers  and  churches. 
Official  dignity  was  offended,  religious  sentiment  shocked,  and 
decency  scandalized.  Instead  of  treating  the  offenders  as 
lunatics,  the  government,  led  by  the  zealots.  Governor  Endi- 
cott,  Lieut.  Governor  Bellingham,  and  ^oi'ton,  the  minister  of 
Boston,  resolved  to  drive  them  away,  as  it  had  done  the  Bap- 
tists, by  savage  laws — laws  which  it  was  hoped,  perhaps,  it 
would  not  be  necessary  to  execute.  Blind  zeal  and  obstinacy 
on  one  side  were  matched  by  infatuated  perverseness  on  the 
other.  The  Quakers  w^ould  not  go,  and  if  banished  came  back 
at  the  cost  of  their  lives.  They  courted  the  penalty,  and  got  it 
in  full  measure. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  frenzy,  at  the  instigation  of  Endi- 
cott  and  the  magistrates  of  Massachusetts,  the  Commissioners 
of  the  United  Colonies  proposed  to  the  several  General  Courts 
that  they  should  prohibit  Quakers  and  Ranters  coming  into 
their  respective  jurisdictions,  and  secure  and  remove  them  if 
they  came.  (Hazard,  ii,  347,  349.)  In  compliance  with  the 
request,  the  General  Court  of  Connecticut,  in  October,  1656, 


88         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

ordered  that  no  town  should  "  entertain  any  Quakers,  Kanters, 
Adamites,  or  such  like  notorious  heretics"  '^  above  the  space  of 
fourteen  days,  on  penalty  of  five  pounds  per  week."  Two 
magistrates  were  authorized  to  commit  the  intruders  to  prison 
till  they  could  be  sent  out  of  the  Colony.  Masters  of  vessels 
landing  any  were  required  to  take  them  away  on  the  first 
opportunity,  or  pay  a  fine  of  twenty  pounds.  In  August, 
1657,  this  law  was  amended,  and  a  penalty  of  iive  pounds 
imposed  on  every  person  for  each  heretic  he  should  entertain, 
and  five  pounds  per  week  on  any  town  for.  each  heretic  it 
should  permit  to  be  entertained,  and  the  like  penalty  on  every 
person  (except  magistrates,  assistants,  elders,  or  constables) 
wdio  should  unnecessarily  speak,  more  or  less,  with  any  heretic. 
In  October  of  the  same  year,  the  keeping  (except  by  elders)  of 
Quaker  books  or  manuscripts  containing  Quaker  errors  was 
made  a  finable  offense,  ten  shillings  to  be  paid  for  each  trans- 
gression. 

In  September,  1658,  the  Commissioners  of  the  United  Colo- 
nies, then  in  session  in  Boston,  "  propounded  and  commended 
to  the  several  general  courts  to  make  a  law  that  all  Quakers 
once  convicted  and  punished  as  such,  shall,  if  they  again  offend, 
be  imprisoned,  and  forthwith  banished  under  pain  of  death, 
and  afterward  if  they  come  again  he  put  to  death  as  presumpt- 
uously incorrigible,  unless  they  publicly  renounce  their  cursed 
opinions  and  devilish  tenets."  This  recommendation  is  signed 
by  all  the  commissioners  except  one,  Josiah  Winslow,  of 
Plymouth,  wdio  was  probably  absent.  John  Winthrop,  of 
Connecticut,  then  Deputy  Governor,  has  appended  to  his  name 
these  words  :  "  looking  at  the  last  as  a  query  and  not  as  an  act,  I 
subscribe,"  meaning,  I  suppose,  that  he  approved  all  except 
the  death  penalty.  Massachusetts  ^lone  was  unwise  enough  to 
pass  the  act,  and  carry  it  into  effect.  It  is  probable  that  that 
much  bewildered  Colony,  desirous  of  pursuing  a  more  rigorous 
policy,  and  wanting  the  moral  support  of  the  other  members  of 
the  Confederacy,  was  at  the  bottom  of  this  impolitic  and  inde- 
fensible movement  on  the  part  of  the  Commissioners.  But 
whoever  prompted  the  legislation  referred  to,  Connecticut  was 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  89 

not  misled.  It  prudently  followed  the  conservative  course 
suggested  by  the  qualified  approval  of  its  favorite  representa- 
tive, Governor  Wintlirop.  All  that  the  General  Coui*t  did 
was  to  authorize,  in  October,  1658,  the  magistrates  or  assist- 
ants to  punish  "  Quakers  and  such  like  heretics  found  foment- 
ing their  wicked  tenets,  and  disturbing  the  public  peace,  bj 
fine,  banishment,  or  corporal  punishment,  as  they  judge  meet, 
the  same  to  be  inflicted  on  any  person  instrumental  in  bringing 
heretics  into  the  Colony,  provided  the  fine  for  a  particular 
default  exceed  not  the  sum  of  ten  pounds." 

The  more  tolerant  legislation  of  Connecticut,  as  compared 
with  that  of  Ma^ssachusetts  and  the  New  Haven  Colony,  would 
be  inferred  from  the  milder  epithets  it  applies  to  the  Quakers. 
In  one  instance  they  are  called  "  loathsome  heretics,"  but 
never  does  the  Court  pronounce  them  or  their  opinions 
"  accursed." 

During  the  prevalence  of  the  Quaker  frenzy  in  New  Eng- 
land, chiefly  in  Massachusetts,  a  contemporary  authority  quoted 
by  Palfrey  (ii,  484),  says :  Three  were  martyred  or  hung,  one 
a  woman  ;  three  had  their  i-iglit  ears  cut  off ;  one  was  branded 
in  the  hand  with  the  letter  H  (heretic);  thirty-one  persons 
received  six  hundred  and  flfty  stripes,  several  "  with  pitched 
ropes ;"  one  was  beaten  till  his  body  was  like  a  jelly ;  one  is 
now  lying  in  fetters  condemned  to  die.  All  these  cases  oc- 
curred in  Massachusetts.  Her  laws  were  no  more  severe  than 
those  of  Episcopal  Virginia. 

It  does  not  appear,  says  Di-.  Trumbull  (i,  442),  that  the  laws 
of  Connecticut  against  the  Quakers  were  ever  executed.  I  can 
And  nothing  which  contradicts  the  statement,  but  Bishop, 
(juoted  by  Palfrey,  says  that  two  women  "  were  imprisoned 
several  days,  and  some  of  their  clothes  sold  to  pay  their  fees." 
(ii,  484.)     Much  harsher  laws  of  the  New  Haven  Jurisdiction* 

*  The  law  of  May,  1658,  required  that  any  of  that  "cursed  sect  of 
heretics,  called  Quakers,"  coming  into  the  Colony,  should  at  once  attend 
to  their  lawful  business  and  depart.  They  were  forbidden  to  "  use  any 
means  by  words,  writings,  books,  or  any  other  way  go  about  to  corrupt 
or  seduce  others,  nor  revile  or  reproach,  or  any  other  way  make  disturb- 
ance or  offend,  and  shall  (for  the  prevention  of  hurt  to  the  people)  have 
7 


90         EARLY  GOVERKMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

were  not  a  dead  letter.  The  truth  is  the  river  settlements 
were  not  harassed  and  tempted  like  Massachusetts,  or  even 
IN^ew  Haven  and  the  adjacent  towns.  The  former,  in  particu- 
lar, was  regarded  bj  aspiring  and  fanatical  propagandists  in 
search  of  opposition  and  persecution  as  a  conspicuous  iield  for 
missionary  work,  where  the  laborer  would  have  the  largest 
opportunities  and  the  surest  success.  Very  few  of  the  new 
sect  seem  to  have  crossed  the  borders  of  Connecticut,  while 
those  that  did  so  behaved  better  than  others  who  were  more 
violently  resisted.  When  persecution  abated,  and  martyrdom 
was  no  longer  attainable,  they  soon  became  orderly  and  peacea- 
ble, and  finally  obtained  a  reputation  in  contrast  with  their 
early  ravings. 

In  July,  1675,  the  General  Court  "  saw  cause  at  present  to 
suspend  the  penalty  for  absence  from  our  public  assemblies 
[religious  meetings],  or  imprisonment  of  those  of  that'  [Quaker] 
persuasion,  provided  they  do  not  gather  into  assemblies  nor 
make  any  disturbance,"  though  they  were  still  liable  to  pay  taxes 
for  the  support  of  the  orthodox  religion. 

The  extraordinary  lenity  which  characterizes  this  law  was 
probably  in  some  way  connected  with  the  great  Indian  war, 
called  King  Philip's  war,  which  had  suddenly  broken  out,  and 
created  consternation  throughout  the  Colony,  and  especially  in 

one  or  more  to  attend  u\.on  them."  Should  they  transgress  they  were 
to  "be  committed  to  prison,  severely  whipped,  kept  at  work,  and  none 
suffered  to  converse  with  them,"  till  they  could  be  sent  out  of  the  Juris- 
diction. If  they  returned,  they  were  to  be  branded  in  the  hand  with 
the  letter  H,  imprisoned,  and  again  sent  away.  For  the  third  offense 
they  were  to  be  branded  in  the  other  hand,  and  otherwise  treated  as 
before.  If  they  again  returned,  whether  men  or  women,  the  act 
required  that  they  should  ' '  have  their  tongues  bored  through  with  a 
hot  iron."  Fifty  pounds  was  the  penalty  for  bringing  into  the  Jurisdic- 
tion any  Quaker;  twenty  shillings  per  hour  for  entertaining  him;  forty 
shillings  for  defending  Quaker  opinions  the  first  time,  eighty  the  second 
time,  and  imprisonment  and  banishment  the  third.  He  who  brought 
Quaker  books  into  the  Colony  must  pay  five  pounds,  and  for  concealing 
them  five  pounds  more.  By  the  magistrates  and  others  into  whose 
hands  they  came,  with  the  advice  and  approbation  of  the  ministers, 
they  were  to  be  kept  safely,  ' '  that  none  may  see  and  read  them,  and  so 
receive  hurt,"  etc.     (N.  H.  Col.  Rec,  ii,  240.) 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         91 

New  London  County,  near  the  seat  of  war.  The  Assembly 
made  strenuous  efforts  for  the  defense  of  the  exposed  towns, 
and  at  the  close  of  the  session  in  July,  passed  the  act  referred 
to.  By  its  means  the  government  probably  intended  to  concil- 
iate and  invite  the  good  will  and  kindly  offices  of  the  Quakers, 
chiefly  of  Rhode  Island,  whose  friendly  relations  with  the  In- 
dians qualified  them  for  important  service  in  this  sad  emergency. 
How  long  the  law  was  suspended  I  know  not,  but  the  time 
seems  to  have  been  short. 

While  Connecticut,  for  the  moment,  was  inclined  to  greater 
indulgence,  Massachusetts  pursued  the  opposite  course.  Con- 
ceiving that  the  war  was  a  chastisement  for  the  sins  of  the 
Commonwealth,  and  that  the  milder  legislation  wliicli  had  been 
adopted  towards  the  Quakers  was  one  of  the  offenses  which 
had  called  down  the  wrath  of  heaven,^  the  General  Court,  hop- 
ing to  make  amends  for  this  particular  wickedness,  passed  an 
act  designed  to  break  up  Quaker  meetings.  It  required  that 
every  person  found  in  attendance  should  be  committed  to  the 
house  of  correction,  and  kept  at  work  for  three  days  on  bread 
and  water,  or  pay  a  fine  of  five  pounds  in  money — which  law, 
at  that  late  day,  "  lost  the  Colony  many  friends,"  says  Hutchin- 
son,    (i,  289.)  ^     ■ 

In  his  answer  to  certain  queries  addressed  to  him  by  the 
English  Lords  of  Trade,  Governor  Leete,  in  July,  1680,  re- 
ported that  there  were  in  Connecticut  "  four  or  ^ve  Seven-day 
men  and  about  as  many  Quakers,"  not  enough  of  either  to  be 
dangerous,  nor  to  require  any  special  legislation.  This,  of  course, 
was  long  after  the  union  (in  1665)  with  the  New  Haven  Colony. 
Of  the  other  denominations,  (irovernor  Leete  says :  "  some  are 
strict  Congregational  men,  others  are  more  large  Congregational 
men,  and  some  moderate  Presbyterians.  The  Congregational 
men  of  both  sorts  are  the  greatest  part  of  the  people."  (Conn. 
Col.  Rec,  iii,  290.) 

*When  their  great  enemy,  John  Norton,  the  minister  of  Boston,  died 
suddenly  in  a  fit,  April  5,  1663,  the  Quakers  represented  his  death  as  a 
divine  judgment.  "  By  the  immediate  power  of  the  Lord  he  was  smit- 
ten and  died." 


92         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

In  the  revision  of  1702,  the  laws  of  October,  1658,  and  July, 
1675,  do  not  appear,  but  those  previously  enacted  are  continued 
as  one  act,  with  little  change.  The  Quakers  of  England,  in  a 
petition  to  the  Queen  (Anne),  complained  of  its  severity,  and 
in  October,  1705,  it  was  annulled.  At  the  next  session,  in  May, 
1706,  the  General  Court  moved  in  the  matter  (as  if  this  were 
necessary),  and  repealed  the  law  ''  so  far  as  it  respects  Quakers," 
leaving  other  "  heretics  "  as  much  exposed  to  its  penalties  as 
they  ever  were.  Yery  clearly,  the  Queen's  proceeding  made 
void  the  whole  act.     (See  Col.  Rec,  iv,  546.) 

The  conduct  of  the  colonists  in  the  Quaker  alarm  shows  how 
little  confidence  they  had  in  religious  liberty,  and  how  much  in 
restriction  and  coercion.  They  were  terror-stricken  ;  their  re- 
'ligion  was  supposed  to  be  in  danger,  and  the  civil  power  nmst 
bestir  itself.  They  were  under  the  influence  of  epidemic  frenzy, 
and  while  the  panic  was  on,  could  not  be  expected  to  behave 
with  decency.  It  is  true  the  intruders  were  unruly  and  slan- 
derous;  the  enemies  of  order,  good  morals,  and  the  institutions 
of  the  country.  Though  tlie  victims  of  persecution,  in  speech 
they  were  themselves  ferociously  intolerant.  As  violators  of 
wholesome  laws  and  disturbers  of  the  peace,  they  deserved  pun- 
ishment, or  at  least  restraint.  An  organized  political  community 
has  a  right  to  protect  itself  from  the  evils  of  vagrant  emissaries 
and  mischief-makers,  to  remove  them  from  the  society  and 
the  privileges  they  abuse,  and  to  prevent  their  return,  using  as 
much  force  as  may  be  needful;  but  it  has  no  right  to  impose 
excessive  or  disproportionate  penalties.  Properly,  in  some  cases, 
they  might  have  been  whipped  for  vagrancy,  or  imprisoned  if 
they  returned  after  banishment,  but  they  were  guilty  of  no 
crime  which  deserved  death.  They  were  hung  because  they 
were  Quakers  and  heretics,  maintaining  '^  cursed  opinions  and 
devilish  tenets,"  not  for  vilifying  magistrates,  ministers,  and 
churches ;  not  because  their  women  made  indecent  exhibitions 
of  themselves,  walking  the  streets  in  a  nude  state.  Of  heresy 
the  colonial  governments  (Rhode  Island  excepted)  had  a  mortal 
fear — fear  betraying  lack  of  confidence  in  the  steadfastness  and 
intelligence  of  the  people.     The  Quakers  proved  not  to  be  dan- 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         93 

gerous  propagandists,  perhaps  because  their  manifest  extrava- 
gance destroyed  tlie  propagating  or  infections  principle. 

It  is  customary,  in  history,  to  defend  a  sect  or  party  accused 
of  wrong  by  pleading  that  others,  perhaps  the  accusers  them- 
selves, were  equally  or  more  guilty,  and  that  the  offense 
charged  must  be  judged,  not  by  the  standard  and  practice  of 
our  time,  but  by  those  of  the  period  in  w^hich  the  actions 
criticised  were  performed.  I  admit  that  allowance  should  be 
made  for  education,  example,  custom,  and  existing  standards, 
and  that  our  judgments,  at  all  times,  should  be  tempered  with 
charity ;  but  I  still  think  that  virtue,  justice,  and  right  are 
independent  realities,  having  qualities  which  are  unchangeable. 
The  fact  should  be  noted  that  when  New^  England  was  settled, 
and  long  afterward,  religious  persecution  was  universal,  or 
nearly  so.  In  England,  as  elsewhere,  each  denomination 
persecuted  every  other  when  it  got  the  power.  To  ascertain 
which  w^as  the  oppressor,  it  w^as  necessary  only  to  know  which 
was  the  strongest.  From  that  quarter  in  this  matter  came 
laws  and  practices  which  none  can  justify.  In  this  regard, 
Connecticut  has,  perhaps,  a  cleaner  (or,  say,  a  less  begrimed) 
record  than  any  other  well-governed  community.  But  it* 
should  be  remembered  that  we  all  live  in  glazed  houses  and 
that  promiscuous  stone-slinging  is  not  a  profitable  game  for 
any  to  begin,  nor  an  easy  one  to  end. 

The  iirst  settlers  of  Connecticut,  unlike  their  brethren  at  the 
Bay,  were  not  annoyed  "by  the  Baptists.  In  1680,  however, 
there  were  ("  probably  all  in  New  London,  and  nearly  all  in 
the  Rogers  family")  "  four  or  five  Seven-day  men  and  about  so 
many  more  Quakers."  The  Eogerenes,  so  called,  did  not 
wholly  agree  with  either  Baptists  or  Quakers,  but  were  a  sect 
by  themselves.  Passionate,  denunciatory,  and  defiant,  they 
took  delight  in  doing  whatsoever  would  shock  the  opinions  or 
prejudices  of  the  orthodox  and  ruling  party.  They  upbraided 
the  judges  and  courts,  labored  on  the  Sabbath,  disturbed 
religious  meetings,  railed  at  the  ministers  as  hirelings,  and 
would  not  help  support  the  churches.  Having  a  rare  talent 
ior   invective,    they   cultivated   it   assiduously.      For   a  long 


94         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

period,  beginning  about  1680,  the  local  authorities,  reinforced 
by  the  General  Assembly,  made  strenuous  endeavors  to  con- 
trol excesses  and  suppress  the  sect,  using  the  copious  legisla- 
tion devised  for  other  purposes,  all  without  effect.  The  offend- 
ers laughed  at  the  confusion  and  vexation  their  turbulence 
occasioned,  and  would  not  be  quieted.  As  law-breakers,  they 
were  set  in  the  stocks,  whipped,  fined,  fettered,  and  impris- 
oned. Their  leader,  John  Rogers,  a  man  of  extraordinary 
energy  and  endurance,  spent  nearly  one-third  of  the  active 
part  of  a  long  life  in  jail.  "Attempts  w^ere  made  to  weary 
them  out  and  break  them  up  by  repeated  fines.  Their  estates 
melted  under  the  seizures  of  the  constable,"  and  the  njagis- 
trates  could  scarcely  find  officers  willing  to  distrain.  The 
minister's  rate  was  particularly  obnoxious.  To  satisfy  it  were 
taken  "  now  a  cow,  then  a  few  sheep,  the  oxen  at  the  plow,  the 
standing  corn,  the  stack  of  hay,  the  threshed  wheat,  piece  after 
piece  of  land,  all  to  uphold  a  system  they  denounced"  and 
abhorred.  As  transgressors  they  ostentatiously  volunteered  the 
information  necessary  for  their  own  conviction,  and  gloried  in 
the  sacrifices  they  were  forced  to  make. 

John  Rogers,  mainly,  no  doubt,  an  honest,  but  naturally  a 
perverse  man,  was  finally  declared  to  be  insane,  and  fled  to 
New  York,  chased  by  the  officers  of  the  law.  He  sought 
to  avoid  the  threatened  medical  treatment — the  only  punish- 
ment from  which  he  ever  ran.  He  returned  in  three  months, 
and  renewed  his  assaults  on  the  institutions  and  laws  of  the 
colony.  Had  he  lived  half  a  century  earlier,  he  would  proba- 
bly have  been  banished,  and  on  his  return  hung,  if  the  Bay 
had  been  his  home.  He  was  certainly  an  offender  qualified  to 
try  the  patience  of  a  long-suffering  people.  There  is  not  much 
doubt  that  he  was  a  monomaniac,  whose  infirmity  had  been 
aggravated  and  made  fast  by  opposition  and  persecution.  A 
prolific  writer,  he  died  in  1Y21,  aged  seventy-three.  (See 
Caulkins'  History  of  New  London,  1860,  p.  201  and  onward.) 

Though  prohibitions  and  punishments  had  failed  to  reduce 
to  obedience  a  handful  of  disorderly,  pertinacious,  and  pugna- 
cious non-conformists,  the  statute-makers,  after  nearly  half  a 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  96 

century  of  trial  and  disappointment,  seem  to  have  learned 
nothing.  In  May,  1723,  a  law  entitled  an  "Act  for  preventing 
Disordci-s  in  the  worship  of  God "  was  enacted,  which,  seem- 
ingly, was  designed  to  break  up  some  well-known  practices  of 
the  Rogerenes.  It  was  a  faint  imitation,  or  greatly  mitigated 
form,  of  one  of  the  worst  laws  in  English  history,  known  as 
the  Conventicle  act.  Its  fii"st  section  required  "that  whatso- 
ever persons  should  neglect  public  worship  in  some  lawful 
congregation  on  the  Lord's  day,  and  form  themselves  into 
separate  companies  in  private  houses"  (for  religious  services) 
should  each  for  every  offense  forfeit  twenty  shillings.  As  the 
fine  for  not  worshiping  publicly  w^as  only  five  shillings,  the 
other  fifteen  shillings  must  have  been  considered  a  punishment 
for  worshiping  privately.  The  remaining  section  imposed  a 
penalty  of  ten  pounds,  and  whipping,  not  exceeding  thirty 
stripes,  for  each  offense,  on  any  one  not  an  allowed  or  lawful 
minister  who  should  profane  the  holy  sacraments  by  adminis- 
tering baptism.  In  the  revision  of  1750  the  last  section  was 
omitted,  and  the  forfeit  mentioned  in  the  first  reduced  to  ten 
shillings. 

For  nearly  seventy  years  from  its  settlement,  the  only  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  in  Connecticut  of  any  calling  themselves 
members  of  the  Church  of  England,  is  found  in  a  petition  to 
the  General  Court,  dated  October  1-7,  1664.  The  subscribers, 
"professors  of  the  Protestant  Christian  religion,  members  of 
the  Church  of  England,  and  subjects  of  our  sovereign  lord, 
Cliarles  the  second,"  "  having  seriously  pondered  our  past  and 
present  want  of  those  ordinances  which  to  us  and  our  children 
as  members  of  Christ's  visible  church  ought  to  be  administered," 
"  declare  our  aggrievances,  and  petition  for  redress."  "  Our 
aggrievance  is  [they  continued]  that  we  and  ours  are  not  under 
the  due  care  of  an  orthodox  ministry  that  will  in  due  manner 
administer  to  us  those  ordinances  that  we  stand  capable  of,  as 
the  baptizing  of  our  children,  our  being  admitted  (as  we  accord- 
ing to  Christ's  order  may  be  found  meet)  to  the  Lord's  table, 
and  a  careful  watch  over  us  in  our  ways,"  etc.  In  their  desti- 
tution, they  humbly  requested  "  some  wholesome  law  by  virtue 


96         EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

wliereof  we  may  both  claim  and  receive  of  sncli  officers  as  are 
or  shall  be  by  law  set  over  us  in  the  church  or  churches  where 
we  have  our  abode  and  residence  those  fore-mentioned  privi- 
leges or  advantages."  They  requested,  too,  "  that,  for  the 
future,  no  law  may  be  in  force  to  make  us  pay  or  contribute  to 
the  maintenance  of  any  minister  or  officer  in  the  church  that 
will  neglect  or  refuse  to  baptize  our  children,  and  to  take  care 
of  us  as  of  such  members  of  the  church  as  are  under  his  or  their 
charge  and  care." 

This  document,  printed  in  the  Church  Review,  vol.  x, 
p.  106,  is  signed  by  William  Pitkin  and  six  others.  Mr.  Pitkin, 
of  Hartford,  was  a  prominent  man,  attorney  for  the  Colony, 
a  deputy  in  1675,  and  public  treasurer  in  1677. 

In  introducing  this  paper  the  Bevieio  sets  forth  the  signers 
as  (among  others)  the  early  churchmen  of  Connecticut,  ''  con- 
tending with  disabilities  and  annoyances."  My  persuasion  is 
that  they  were  not  churchmen  at  all,  or  were  not  more  than 
many  others  who  did  not  join  in  the  Petition.  I  can  iind  no 
evidence  that  there  were,  at  that  time,  or  for  many  years  after- 
ward, any  of  that  denomination  in  the  Colony.  Apparently, 
tliey  were  persons  who  had  become  involved  in  the  bitter  con- 
troversies of  that  period.  They  considered  themselves  entitled 
to  certain  church  privileges  which  were  denied  them,  and  for 
a  temporary  purpose,  perhaps  to  give  dignity  to  opposition, 
declared  themselves  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  they 
may  have  been  before  leaving  the  mother  country.  The  docu- 
ment itself  proves  that  the  petitioners  were  half-way  covenant 
men,  so  called,  who  claimed  admission  to  the  Lord's  supper  and 
baptism  for  their  children — rites  which,  in  the  opinion  of  every 
true  churchman,  the  Congregationalists  of  New  England  were 
not  authorized  to  administer,  and  which,  coming  from  such  a 
source,  could  have  no  saving  efficacy.  Their  grievance  was  that 
their  ministers,  having  the  requisite  authority,  refused,  wrong- 
fully, to  exercise  it  in  their  favor,  leaving  them  "as  sheep 
scattered,  having  no  shepherd."  Eor  this  reason  they  claimed 
that  they  should  not  be  compelled  to  maintain  them. 

Clearly,  the  signers  had  the  sympathy  of  the  General  Court, 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.         97 

Perhaps  the  latter  wanted  an  excuse  for  action.  In  harmony 
with  this  view,  the  Court  desired  the  ministers  and  churches  to 
consider  whetlier  it  were  not  their  duty  to  receive  into  church 
fellowship,  "  all  persons  who  are  of  an  honest  and  godly  conver- 
sation, having  a  competency  of  knowledge  in  the  principles  of 
religion,  and  shall  desire  to  join  them  in  church  fellowship,  by 
an  explicit  covenant,  and  that  they  have  their  children  baptized, 
and  that  all  the  children  of  the  church  be  accepted  and 
accounted  real  members,  and  that  the  church  exercise  a  due 
Cliristian  care  and  watch  over  them,"  etc.  The  Court  also  de- 
sired to  kmnv  whether  it  w^ere  not  its  "duty  to  order  the 
churches  to  practice  according  to  the  premises."  The  ministers 
dissented,  and  the  order  was  not  made. 

When  the  Quaker  spasm  was  over,  the  churches  and  people 
were  able,  without  annoyance  from  heretics,  to  give  their  atten- 
tion more  exclusively  to  internal  dissensions.  We  have  seen 
how  poorly  they  acquitted  themselves  in  that  direction.  When 
all  were  wearied  with  theological  wrangling,  the  more  prac- 
tical controversy  with  the  ISTew  Haven  Colony  awakened  new 
emotions.  After  the  union  of  the  two  colonies,  in  1665,  under 
the  charter,  there  came  to  New  England  the  king's  commission- 
ers to  investigate  and  report.  They  visited  Connecticut,  and 
submitted  "  propositions  "  to  the  Court.  Among  other  things, 
they  required  "  that  all  persons  of  civil  lives  may  freely  enjoy 
the  liberty  of  their  consciences,  and  the  worship  of  God  in  that 
way  which  they  think  best,  provided  that  this  liberty,  tend  not 
to  the  disturbance  of  the  public,  nor  to  the  hindrance  of  the 
maintenance  of  ministers  regularly  chosen."  They  demanded 
something  similar  of  the  other  colonial  governments,  alw\iys, 
(loul)tle8s,  in  obedience  to  instructions.  In  1660,  before  his 
accession  to  the  throne,  the  king  (CJharleS  II),  to  secure  popular 
favor,  promised  liberty  of  conscience,  and  afterward,  for  a  time 
at  least,  seemed  willing  to  keep  his  word.  He  did  several  things 
w^iich  give  countenance  to  that  idea.  The  charter  of  Connecti- 
cut was  certainly  jin  example  of  singular  liberality.  Ilhode 
Island's  charter,  granted  in  July,  1663,  expressly  declared  that  no 
person  should*  be  molested  for  "  opinion  in  matters  of  religion." 


98  EARLY   GOVERNMENT    OF    CONNECTICUT. 

In  a  conciliatory  letter  addressed  to  the  Governor  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, in  June,  1662,  the  king  commanded  "that  all  free- 
holders of  competent  estates,  not  vicious  in  conversation  and 
orthodox  in  religion,  though  of  different  persuasions  concerning 
church  government,  should  have  their  votes  in  the  election  of 
all  officers,  both  civil  and  military.""^  The  command  was  un- 
heeded, and  two  years  later  commissioners  were  sent  over  to 
look  after  this  and  other  matters,  without  important  result.  To 
his  immediate  subjects  in  England,  in  December,  1662,  the 
king  publicly  proposed  to  ask  Parliament  to  concur  with  him 
in  an  act  for  the  relief  of  "  tender  and  misguided  consciences." 

Several  years  later  he  issued  a  Declaration  of  Indulgence, 
suspending  all  penal  laws  against  dissenters,  but  was  soon  com- 
pelled to  retract.  Parliament,  having  then  but  iif ty-six  Presby- 
terian members,  was  unalterably  opposed  to  him.  The  Protestant 
non-Conformists  were  the  avowed  enemies  of  universal  tolera- 
tion. They  would  not  accept  liberty  if  the  Pomish  church 
must  share  it.  In  this  regard,  Charles,  it  was  said,  was  a  hypo- 
crite, and  secretly  a  Papist,  plotting  for  Catholic  emancipation. 
It  may  be  so,  but  in  New  England  there  were  no  Catholics — 
none  to  l)e  benefited  by  a  successful  plot.  In  this  matter  I 
find  no  difficulty  in  thinking  he  may  have  been  sincere,  moment- 
arily, at  least, — as  sincere  as  his  thoughtless  nature  permitted. 
Nor  do  I  regard  the  fact  that  near  the  close  of  his  last  sickness 
he  received  the  sacrament  from  the  Pomish  priests  as  proof  of 
the  contrary.  When  in  health  and  the  full  possession  of  his 
faculties,  my  suspicion  is  that  he  had  not  religion  enough  of 
any  kind  to  influence  much  his  conduct.  Though  Charles  had 
some  good  qualities,  the  bad  predominated.  He  was  profligate, 
faithless,  irresolute,  indolent,  and  always  needy.  Naturally  he 
was  not  cruel ;  but  notwithstanding  his  professed  regard  for 
liberty,  some  of  the  most  flagitious  laws  in  English  history 
received  his  assent — the  Corporation  act  and  the  Act  of  Uni- 
formity in  1662,  the  Conventicle  act  in  1663,  the  Five  Mile 
act  in  1665,  and  the  Test  act  in  1673. 

But  what  answer  did  the  General  Court  give  to  the  king's 
*  Hazard,  ii,  605. 


EARLY   GOVP]RNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  99 

commissioners  who  required  liberty  of  conscience  in  Connecti- 
cut ?  This  is  the  reply  :  "  We  know  not  of  any  one  that  hath 
been  troubled  by  us  for  attending  his  conscience,  provided  he 
hath  not  disturbed  the  public  "  (Conn.  Col.  Rec,  i,  439) — an 
adroit  answer.  Though  evasive,  it  was  literally  correct — cor- 
rect because  there  were  then  none  (seemingly)  who  desired  to 
worship  in  other  than  the  legal  and  approved  way.  There- 
fore, no  man's  liberty  could  be  infringed.  In  his  "  Narrative  " 
of  the  Commissioners'  proceedings,  the  writer  states  that 
'*  they  [the  colonists]  will  not  hinder  any  from  enjoying^  the 
sacraments,  and  in  using  the  common  prayer-book,  provided 
that  they  hinder  not  the  maintenance  of  the  public  minister." 
Had  the  narrator  said  that  none  were  kept  from  the  sacraments 
whom  the  churches  approved,  and  that  all  might  be  freemen 
who  complied  with  the  laws,  his  statement  would  have  agreed 
with  the  facts.  As  for  the  prayer-book,  I  believe  the  early 
planters  never  objected  to  its  use,  but  would  doubtless  have 
done  so  had  they  been  asked  to  make  it  the  basis  of  their  pub- 
lic worship.  Ti^vidently  they  made  a  great  effort  to  please  their 
royal  visitors,  and  furnish  satisfactoiy  ariswers  to  all  questions, 
some  of  them  knotty  ones.  They  succeeded,  as  the  king  after- 
ward signified. 

Says  Douglass,  in  his  Summary  (ii,  135),  ''I  never  heard  of 
any  persecuting  spirit  in  Connecticut ;  in  this  they  are  egre- 
giously  aspersed."  The  second  volume  of  his  work  was  printed 
in  1753,  only  ten  years  after  the  notorious  New  Light  legisla- 
tion, which  Dr.  Trumbull  and  Dr.  Dutton  condemn  so  ve- 
hemently. The  same  writer  characterizes  the  revised  laws  of 
1750  as  "the  most  natural,  e(iuitable,  plain  and  concise  laws  for 
Plantations  hitherto  extant."  I  believe  this  commendation,  at 
the  time  it  was  bestowed,  was  well  deserved.  Comparatively 
speaking,  Connecticut  shows  to  advantage  in  the  Code  of  1750. 
The  winnowing  process  had  been  intrcjduced,  and  great  im- 
provements made.  But  the  laws  still  enjoined  conformity,  and 
imposed  penalties  for  non-conformity.  They  did  not  permit 
liberty  of  conscience,  for  lil)erty  allows  one  to  choose  his  relig- 
ion, to  select  the  church  he  would  attend  or  not  attend,  to 


100  EARLY    GOVERNMENT   OF    CONNECTICUT. 

worship  when  and  where  he  pleases,  and  in  all  cases  to  follow 
his  conviction  in  peace.  Men  who  desired  to  give  outward 
form  to  their  belief,  or  proposed  to  set  up  a  church  or  church 
administration,  were  constrained  to  ask  the  consent  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  and  adopt  some  approved  or  regulation  pattern. 
The  Conventicle  act  of  1723  was  still  in  force. 

The  eight  or  ten  unassorted  Quakers,  Baptists,  and  Roger- 
enes,  of  New  London,  whom  Governor  Leete  reported  to  the 
king's  commissioners,  had  not  yet  become  notorious,  and  when 
they,  did  were  at  first  too  few  to  create  general  disturbance. 

About  1706,  the  Episcopal  form  of  worship  was  introduced 
into  Fairfield  County,  and  in  a  few  years  made  important  prog- 
ress. On  account  of  the  power  and  patronage  which  stood 
behind  it,  it  was  a  form  which  took  Connecticut  at  a  disadvan- 
tage— one  with  which  it  was  least  able  to  contend.  The  Colony 
was,  in  truth,  under  a  heavy  bond  to  behave  with  decency  ;  had 
a  charter  which  it  valued  above  all  things  temporal.  By  discreet 
management  hitherto,  this  had  been  preserved  in  times  of  peril, 
and  should  not  now  be  lost  by  persistence  in  imprudent  legis- 
lation. Nor  was  it  probable  that  the  English  government, 
having  by  the  ''  Toleration  act "  of  1689  granted  important 
relief  to  the  dissenters  in  England,  would  permit  the  national 
church  and  its  supporters  to  be  rouglily  treated  or  forcibly 
suppressed  in  the  colonies.  The  act  referred  to  repealed  no 
part  of  the  tyrannical  legislation  which  drove  the  Puritans  from 
their  native  country,  but  removed,  on  certain  conditions  and  to 
a  limited  extent,  the  penalties  attached  to  disobedience.  There 
was  in  it  no  recognition  of  religious  liberty  as  a  right,  but  on  the 
contrary  a  denial.  Restriction  was  still  the  rule,  liberty  the  ex- 
ception. "A  very  scanty  measure  "  of  justice  (Hallam),  which 
repealed  nothing,  it  was  a  forced  concession  on  the  part  of  the 
established  church  to  the  dissenters  who  had  helped  to  overturn 
the  Stuart  dynasty — a  reluctant  reward  for  indispensable- services 
rendered.  Eoman  Catholics  and  those  who  denied  the  Trinity 
were  expressly  excluded  from  its  benefits.  Great  care  was 
taken  that  the  act  should  be  no  broader  tlian  was  necessary, 
nor  confer  privileges  which  could  with  safety  be  withheld.    Col- 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  lOl 

oiiial  legislation,  so  far  as  it  prescribed  penalties  for  certain 
kinds  of  non-conformity,  was  in  conflict  with  it,  if  not  with  the 
charter  of  1662.  The  continued  allowance  of  these  conflicting 
laws  was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  they  were  not  com- 
plained of,  or  were  not  brought  to  the  notice  of  Parliament. 
By  their  operation  churchmen,  and  others  not  of  the  Congre- 
gational order,  were  exposed  to  penalties  which  were  not  inflicted 
on  the  dissenters  of  England.  They  did  not  "  enjoy  the  liberty 
of  their  consciences,  and  the  worship  of  God  in  the  way  they 
thought  best,''  about  which  the  royal  commissioners  inquired 
to  little  purpose  in  16Q6.  Bancroft's  glowing  account  of  liberty 
in  early  Connecticut  (History,  ii)  is  inspiring,  or  would  be  were 
there  no  exaggeration  or  embellishment.  His  detonating  sen- 
tences remind  one  of  a  running  fire  of  Chinese  crackers  on  the 
morning  of  the  "glorious  fourth."  He  writes  eulogy  better 
than  history. 

Under  the  circumstances,  Connecticut  could  scarcely  do 
otherwise  than  pursue  the  respectful  .and  ccmciliating  course 
which  had  distinguished  its  policy  since  the  restoration  of 
Charles  II,  in  1660.  By  the  force  of  this  policy  the  charter 
was  secured,  and  a  good  reputation  maintained  at  the  English 
court.  King  Charles  himself  complimented  the  Governor  and 
council  on  their  "  dutifulness  and  obedience,"  and  contrasted 
their  conduct  with  the  "refractoriness"  of  the  Massachusetts 
Colony.  (Conn.  Coh  Rec,  ii,  514.)  Civility  costs  nothing, 
and  not  infrequently  pays  a  round  profit.  The  same  is  some- 
times true  of  timely  concession.  Undoubtedly  Connecticut 
thought  so,  and  in  May,  1708,  passed  the  famous  "Act  for  the  ease 
of  such  as  soberly  dissent,"  etc.  It  provided  that  sober  dissenters, 
who  were  prepared  to  take  certain  "  iron-clad  oaths,"  to  "  qualify 
themselves  before  the  County  Court,  according  to  an.  act  made 
in  the  first  year  of  William  and  Mary  [1689],  granting  liberty 
of  worsliiping  God  in  a  way  separate  from  that  which  is  estab- 
lished by  law,"  should  "  enjoy  the  same  liberty  and  privilege  in 
this  Colony,  without  molestation."  It  assumed  that  Congrega- 
tionalism in  Connecticut  was  the  e(piivalent  of  Prelacy  in 
England,  having  equal  rank  and  authority,  and  a  rightful  pre- 


102        EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

eminence  among  denominations.  It  gave  to  churchmen  and 
other  dissenters  in  the  Colony  certain  privileges  which  for  nine- 
teen years  non-Conformists  (Papists  and  Unitarians  excepted) 
had  enjoyed  in  the  mother  country.  If,  as  its  terms  imply,  it 
followed  the  English  law,  it  compelled  all  who  sought  its  beneiits 
to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  and  supremacy,  and  subscribe  to 
the  declaration  against  transubstantiation.  The  clergy  were  to 
sign  all  but  three,  and  parts  of  two  others,  of  the  thirty-nine 
articles.  The  appearance  before  the  County  Court,  in  obedience 
to  a  Puritan  law,  of  churchmen  pledging  solemnly  for  the  sec- 
ond time  their  belief  in  their  own  articles,  would  have  been  an 
unusual  spectacle,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  humiliation  was 
not  required,  though  the  colonial  law  seemed  to  demand  it. 
Those  who  took  the  benefit  of  the  act  were  still  liable  to  taxation 
for  the  support  of  the  established  ministry,  as  they  were  and 
continued  to  be  in  England  till  the  passage  of  the  Compulsory 
Church  Kates  Abolition  Act,  in  1868.  (31  and  32,  Yict., 
Ch.  109.) 

The  privileges  granted  by  the  law  of  1708  were  important, 
but,  of  course,  did  not  satisfy  the  dissenters  of  Connecticut. 
As  their  number  increased  and  their  influence  was  extended, 
they  became  bolder,  and  more  importunate  for  concessions.  The 
friends  of  the  Episcopal  church,  though  at  this  time  (172Y)  "a 
weak  and  slender  body,"  having  but  a  single  minister  in  the 
Colony  (Beardsley's  Hist,  of  the  Episc.  Chh.  in  Conn.,  i,  73), 
were  zealous,  active,  and  successful  in  winning  converts.  Backed 
as  they  were  by  the  great  influence  of  the  English  Society  for 
the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts — a  society 
which  lipped  to  supply  the  alleged  lack  of  "  religious  instruc- 
tion "  in  the  New  England  colonies — they  felt  confidence 
enough  to  resist  the  collection  of  the  tax  for  the  support  of  the 
standing  order.  For  their  refusal  ten  were  imprisoned  in  Fair- 
field, where  they  were  numerous.  The  church-wardens  and 
others,  of  Fairfield,  then  memorialized  the  General  Assembly, 
praying  for  relief.  At  the  May  session,  1727,  the  prayer  was 
granted.  The  act  provided  that  all  should  be  taxed  as  before, 
but  in  places  wliere  there  was  an  English  church  having  a  set- 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.        103 

tied  minister  "  in  orders,"  that  portion  of  the  tax  collected  from 
churchmen  residing  sufficiently  near  to  attend  the  service,  and 
attending  it,  should  be  delivered  to  the  minister  of  said  church. 
If  the  sum  thus  delivered  was  inade(|uate,  the  society  was 
authorized  to  make  up  the  deficiency  by  a  levy  on  its  own 
members.  Churchmen  were  also  relieved  from  the  burden  of 
helping  to  build  meeting-houses. 

In  towns  containing  two  ministers,  one  of  the  church  of 
England,  the  purpose  of  the  act  seems  to  have  been  to  distrib- 
ute equitably  the  parish  taxes,  without  unnecessary  encourage- 
ment to  the  missionaries  of  the  Society  for  Propagating  the 
Grospel,  wlio  were  making  earnest  efforts,  as  yet  in  a  small 
way,  to  bring  back  the  colonists  to  their  primitive  faith.  These 
missionaries  were  supported  mainly  by  the  Society  "  at  home," 
receiving  usually,  says  Dr.  Beardsley,  sixty  pounds  sterling  per 
annum,  a  sum  fully  equal  to  that  paid  to  the  Congregational 
minister.  Thus  they  were  enabled  to  labor  without  much  cost 
to  their  followers — a  great  advantage  among  a  poor  people. 
Johnson  and  Caner  were  then  stationed  at  Stratford  and  Fair- 
field. Active,  zealous,  sincere,  they  visited  the  neighboring 
villages,  preaching,  baptizing,  and  making  converts,  wherever 
they  w^ent.  The  curiosity  which  so  novel  a  spectacle  must 
have  excited  was  naturally  followed,  when  the  danger  became 
apparent,  by  jealousy  and  sometimes  open  opposition.  The 
lamblike  element  in  the  temper  of  the  jjeople  may  have  suffered 
by  the  representation  in  England  that  they  were,  "  to  a  great 
extent,  destitute  of  religious  instruction" — the  very  thing  with 
which  they  supposed  themsi'lves  most  bountifully  supplied.  It 
is  easy  to  believe  that  the  benevolent  men,  who,  pitying  their 
benighted  condition,  had  come  among  them  as  instructors  and 
much  needed  guides  to  heaven,  were  not  very  cordially  received. 
Too  often,  ])erliap8,  they  were  regarded  as  presumptuous  intru- 
ders, whose  services  were  more  needed  "at  home,"  as  they 
designated  the  mother  country,  than  among  themselves. 

To  the  missionaries  and  their  adherents  the  General  Court 
did  not  intend  to  give  or  allow  unusual  advantages.  Evidently, 
it  meant  that  they  should  gain  as  little  as  possible  from  the 


l04  EARLY   GOVERNMENT   OF    CONNECTICUT. 

ecouoiny  of  their  worship  caused  by  the  contributions  of  the 
Propagation  Society.  Nor  was  it  disposed  to  favor  those  of 
the  Congregational  faith  wlio  miglit  cliange  their  religion  to  se- 
cure reduced  taxation.  "  Some  few  persons,"  said  Governor 
Talcott,  in  a  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  quoted  by  Dr. 
Beardsley  (i,  72),  in  order  "  to  appear  singular,  or  to  be  freed 
from  a  small  tax,  declared  themselves  of  the  Church  of  England, 
some  of  them  living  thirty  or  forty  miles  from  the  Church  of 
England's  minister."  Others  took  the  same  course  when  a  new 
meeting-house  was  to  be  built.  These  things  annoyed  the  Con- 
gregationalists,  as  they  well  might.  Seemingly,  they  had 
foreseen  the  difficulty,  and  endeavored  to  provide  for  it.  If  a 
man  became  a  churchman,  the  law  did  not  exempt  him  from  the 
customary  parish  tax  for  the  support  of  tlie  ministry,  but  the  sum 
paid  by  him  was  to  be  given  to  his  chosen  minister,  provided 
the  latter  lived  in  the  same  parish  or  conveniently  near,  but  in 
no  case  to  the  itinerant  missionary,  whose  visits  were  only  occa- 
sional, w^hose  home,  if  he  had  any,  was  many  miles  away,  and 
whose  salary  was  paid  by  others.  A  different  course  could  not 
properly  have  been  pursued.  A  law  directing  a  town  to  pay 
over  to  the  minister  or  church  of  another  town  any  part  of  a 
tax  levied  for  the  benefit  of  the  ministry  within  its  own  limits 
would  have  been  an  extraordinary  one.  I  see  not  how  the  well 
grounded  complaint  against  the  working  of  the  Act  of  1727 
could  have  been  removed  except  by  allowing  to  each  denomi- 
nation the  exclusive  privilege  of  taxing  its  ow^n  members — its 
voluntary  members — for  its  own  purposes.  This  was  denied — 
denied,  perhaps,  because  there  would  then  be  persons  who  would 
not  join  themselves  to  any  society.  Doubtless  it  was  thought 
better  that  men  should  be  compelled  to  support  some  English 
church  than  to  have  the  option  of  maintaining  none,  and  of 
living  without  religion. 

Our  fathers  on  botli  sides  of  the  water,  when  in  power,  claimed 
it  as  a  right  and  esteemed  it  a  duty  to  make  all  contribute  to 
the  support  of  the  established  religion,  on  the  ground,  of  course, 
that  the  established  was  the  true  religion.  Nor  do  I  think  the 
principle  involved  is  yet  renounced,  though  its  assertion  may  be 


EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT.        105 

deferred  till  circumstances  favor  success.  How  many  in  Con- 
necticut would  to-day  vote  for  a  State  religion,  if  their  own 
could  be  invested  with  that  distinction,  and  their  denominational 
friends  he  permanently  installed  in  the  government  ?  E-eligious 
toleration  is  not  natural  to  the  human  heart,  even  in  its  re- 
newed state.     It  is  an  exotic  whose  roots  rarely  strike  deep. 

There  were  important  (and  doubtless  honest)  differences  of 
opinion  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Act  of  1727,  growing  out  of 
the  itinerant  character  of  the  English  missionaries,  and  the  wide 
dispersion  of  their  followers — differences  which  the  courts  de- 
cided in  favor  of  the  dominant  party.  (See  Beardsley's  Hist., 
vol.  i,  chap.  V.)  The  losing  side,  finding  no  remedy,  continued 
to  suffer  damage,  when  the  minister  did  not  "  abide  "  sufficiently 
near  his  people  to  claim  their  parish  rates.  But  notwithstanding 
this,  the  law,  under  the  circumstances,  was  a  generous  one,  and 
creditable  to  tlie  good  sense  of  the  government.  It  was  passed, 
be  it  remembered,  one  hundred  and  forty-one  years  in  advance  of 
a  Parliamentary  Act  relieving  dissenters  in  England  from  com- 
pulsory parish  rates,  levied  for  the  support  of  the  established 
church.  Considering  that  it  was  asked  for  by  a  small,  almost 
insignificant  minority,  and  was  wanted  to  help  build  up  a  grow- 
ing sect  which  sought  (though  from  conscientious  motives)  to 
undermine  the  religious  institutions  of  the  colony,  the  General 
Court  deserved  the  gratitude  of  the  petitioners,  at  least.  If  the 
latter  did  not  obtain  all  they  desired^  they  got  as  much  as  they 
had  reason  to  expect.  Had  the  English  government  shown  an 
ecpially  liberal  and  tolerant  spirit  in  1620  and  afterward,  the 
Pilgrims  would  never  have  left  their  native  land,  nor  New  Eng- 
land been  peopled  at  the  time  it  was.  The  act  was  nothing 
more  than  justice  and  expediency  required,  but  men  deserve 
words  of  encouragement  for  doing  that,  especially  in  times  of 
unlimited  wrong-head edness.  If  it  be  claimed,  in  the  way  of 
disparagement,  that  the  law-makers  were  under  the  influence 
of  political  necessity,  the  same  claim  may  be  urged  with  equal 
or  greater  force  against  the  authors  of  the  renowned  Toleration 
Act  of  1689.  That  the  imperfections  of  the  Act  did  not  much 
embairass  the  Anglican  (yhurch  is,  perhaps, shown  by  the  ra])id 
8 


106        EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

increase  of  the  latter,  growing  from  "  a  weak  and  slender  body," 
in  1728,  with  two  missionaries,  to  a  male  membership,  in  1738, 
of  six  hundred  and  thirty-six,  with  nine  parishes  and  seven 
missionaries.     (Church  Review,  x,  112.) 

It  may  be  truly  said  that  the  law,  if  aiming  at  emancipation, 
did  not  go  far  enough.  Individuals  were  still  denied  the  privi- 
lege of  choosing  their  religion  without  conditions — conditions 
which  they  could  not  with  honesty  accept.  They  were  forbid- 
den "  to  neglect  public  worship  in  some  lawful  congregation, 
and  assemble  in  separate  companies  in  ju'ivate  houses."  They 
were  forced  to  hear  preaching  which  they  did  not  believe,  and 
then  compelled  to  pay  for  it.  Their  consciences  were  in  the 
keeping  of  the  government,  and  the  exercise  of  private  judg- 
ment was  threatened  with  penalties. 

Those  who  were  active  in  procuring  the  legislation  of  1708 
and  1727  were  very  properly  alive  to  their  own  wrongs,  but 
did  not  feel  as  keenly  for  the  equal  wrongs  of  others.  They 
sought  a  selfish  end,  giving  no  heed  to  the  principle  involved. 
Like  the  constitution-makers  of  1639,  they  wanted  liberty  for 
themselves,  not  for  all.  Nobody  just  then  seems  to  have 
thought  of  the  "soberly  dissenting"  Quakers  and  Baptists,  a 
very  few  of  whom  were  living  near  the  Rhode  Island  bound- 
ary, in  New  London  County.  But  in  May  and  October,  1729, 
on  petition,  persons  belonging  to  these  denominations  "  who 
do  attend  the  worship  of  God,"  were  "  excused  from  contrib- 
uting to  the  support  of  the  established  ministry,"  and  from 
helping  to  build  meeting-houses,  without  any  reference  to 
residence  or  the  abiding  place  of  their  ministers. 

In  all  these  cases  the  General  Assembly  proceeded  on  the 
principle  of  conceding  nothing  that  it  could  with  safety  or 
decency  withhold,  justifying  itself  perhaps  by  the  still  more 
illiberal  legislation  of  England.  Liberty  was  doled  out  in 
fractional  doses,  at  long  intervals,  as  if  it  were  a  dangerous 
element,  and  too  costly  for  popular  use.  The  right  of  a  man 
to  his  religious  opinions,  and  the  wrong  of  forcing  him  to 
practice  what  his  soul  abhorred,  were  not  yet  acknowledged. 
Restriction  was  the  rule,  freedom  the  exception,  and  govern- 


EARLY    GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  107 

ment  tlie  absolute  and  irresponsible  dispenser  of  both.  If  one 
did  not  agree  with  any  of  the  tolerated  sects,  but  was  at  heart 
a  Methodist,  Unitarian,  or  Universalist,  too  honest  to  play  the 
hypocrite,  too  conscientious  to  subscribe  to  a  faith  which  in 
his  judgment  was  unsound,  he  was  exposed  to  all  the  severities 
of  the  laws.  But  a  change  was  at  hand  in  the  minds  of  the 
people,  and  erelong  came  a  change  in  legislation. 

By  the  act  of  1702,  modified  by  others  in  1721,  1750,  and 
1770,  every  person  was  required  "on  the  Lord's  day  carefully 
to  apply  himself  to  the  duties  of  religion  and  piety,  publicly 
and  privately,  ....  and  dnly  attend  the  public  worship  of 
God  on  the  Lord's  day  in  some  congregation  allowed  by  law, 
provided  there  be  any  he  can  conscientiously  and  conveniently 
attend,  ....  or  pay  a  fine  of  fifty  cents,"  the  person  accused 
to  prove  his  innocence.  (See  Kevision  of  1 808,  p.  578.)  The 
proviso  introduced  in  1770  is  of  a  kind  that  was  unusual,  if  not 
unprecedented  in  Connecticut  legislation.  It  recognized  con- 
science in  the  world  outside,  and  in  men  of  different  persua- 
sions— recognized  it  as  having  rightful  authority  over  conduct 
opposed  to  the  established  or  allowed  belief.  Evidently  the 
act  was  not  intended  to  release  any,  on  the  ground  of  consci- 
entious scruples,  from  attending  public  worship  somewhere. 

In  1783  closed  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  waged  in  defense 
of  political  rights.  Connecticut  took  part  in  it,  not  on  account 
of  substantial  grievances  of  its  own,  but  out  of  sympathy  for 
defenseless  Massachusetts.  During  the  conflict  the  doctrine  of 
human  rights  was  scrutinized,  and  its  foundati(ms  critically 
examined.  Traditicmary  beliefs  and  whatever  in  philosophy  or 
religion  rested  on  authority  alone  were  investigated  anew.  It 
was  a  time  of  upheaval,  and  changes  would  be  looked  for  in 
legislation  ;  but  Connecticut,  now  a  sovereign  State,  was,  as  of 
old,  cautious  and  conservative.  Something,  however,  it  was 
constrained  to  do  in  the  way  of  increased  liberality.  In  the 
revision  of  1784  I  find  an  "Act  for  securing  the  Rights  of 
Conscience."  It  enacted  that  no  persons  professing  the 
Christian  religion,  who  soberly  and  conscientiously  dissented 
from  the  worship  and  ministry  established  by  law,  and  attended 


108        EARLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

public  worship  bj  themselves,  should  incur  a  penalty  for 
absence  from  the  established  or  orthodox  worship  on  the 
Lord's  day,  or  for  worshiping  in  a  separate  way  on  said  day. 
It  also  declared  that  Christians  of  every  denomination.  Separ- 
ates, Churchmen,  Baptists,  Quakers,  etc.,  who  attended  and 
helped  maintain  public  worship  agreeably  to  their  consciences 
and  professions,  should  not  be  taxed  for  the  suj)port  of  any 
societies  but  their  own.  Those  who  did  not  belong  to  any 
other  society  were  taxed  by  the  Congregationalists.  Another 
section  of  the  same  act  decreed  that  all  Protestant  dissenters, 
maintaining  and  attending  j^^blic  worship  by  themselves, 
should  have  liberty  to  use  and  exercise  the  same  powers  and 
privileges  for  maintaining  their  respective  ministers,  and  for 
building  and  repairing  their  meeting-houses,  as  had  the  eccle- 
siastical societies  constituted  by  law. 

Another  law  in  the  revision  of  1784,  relating  to  ''  Societies," 
provided  that  all  persons  on  reaching  twenty-one  years  of  age 
should  have  liberty  to  choose  the  society  to  which  they  would 
belong.  If  they  did  not  elect  in  twelve  months,  they  were  to 
be  considered  as  legal  members  of  the  society  in  which  they 
were  brought  up,  etc.  New-comers  could  choose  at  leisure, 
but,  till  they  did  so,  they  were  required  to  pay  taxes  to  the 
society  lowest  in  the  list,  this  requirement  showing  that  the 
standing  order  was  willing  to  surrender  its  preferred  claim  to 
taxes  not  intended  for  its  special  benefit.  When  an  individual 
had  once  joined  a  society,  he  could  not  be  released  excej^t  to 
join  another. 

The  revised  laws  referred  to  above  seem  to  have  taken  the 
place  of  the  Toleration  act  of  1708,  the  anti-Rogerene  act  of 
1723,  the  acts  of  1727  and  1729,  favoring  Churchmen,  Quakers, 
and  Baptists,  certain  acts  against  the  Separates,  etc.  It  is 
presumed  they  were  satisfactory  to  all  Christian  or  Protestant 
denominations,  not  the  less  so  because  they  compelled  all  to 
pay  taxes  for  the  support  of  the  churches,  and  all  to  be  church- 
goers, willing  or  unwilling.  Churchmen  in  particular  ought 
to  have  been  satisfied,  as  they  were  generally  tories  during  the 
war,  and  gave  great  offense. 


EARLY    GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  109 

In  May,  1816,  tliat  part  of  the  Act  which  exacted  a  penalty 
for  absence  from  pul)lic  worsliip  was  repealed.  In  appearance 
this  was  done  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  an  enterprising  but  bois- 
terous party,  which  threatened  to  revolutionize  the  government. 
The  repealing  Act,  as  I  understand  it,  in  effect  put  an  end  to 
compulsory  attendance  on  religious  services  of  any  kind. 
The  law  had  been  in  force  since  1650,  and  was  an  essential  part 
of  a  system  of  constraint  which  was  soon  to  crumble  away.  At 
first  the  offense  to  be  punished  must  be  proved  in  the  usual 
way ;  but  in  May,  1721,  the  rule  of  law  was  reversed,  and  the 
accused  required  to  prove  innocence,  or  be  judged  guilty.  The 
virtual  abolition  of  the  compulsory  go-to-meeting  Act  was  a  very 
important  concession,  but  it  came  too  late  to  save  the  party  in 
power.  The  Assembly's  action,  of  course,  gave  great  grief  to 
the  good  men  of  1816,  and  was  a  cause  of  gratulation  to 
fair-weather  worshipers — and  the  heathen.  But  the  churches, 
notwithstanding,  were,  not  deserted,  nor  in  -any  way  weakened. 
Religious  belief  is  too  deeply  implanted  to  be  swept  away  by 
adverse  legislation,  or  to  ])erisli  because  not  encouraged  by 
fines. 

In  1817,  by  a  coalition  of  all  the  dissatisfied  elements,  eccle- 
siastical and  political,  the  ruling  dynasty  was  overthrown. 
Congregationalism,  considered  as  the  dominant  or  State  religion, 
was  compelled,  not  to  take  a  back  seat,  but  to  relinquish  its 
preferred  claim,  and  sit  undistinguished  with  the  congregation. 
Its  faithful  ally.  Federalism,  under  the  leadership  of  some  of 
the  ablest  and  best  men  of  the  State,  was  constrained  to  share 
the  humiliation.  It  was  a  time  of  wrath,  billingsgate,  and  up- 
roar. Ribald  pamphleteers,  demagogues,  and  the  caucus,  flour- 
ished as  never  before  or  since  in  Connecticut.  The  victorious 
party,  then  called  the  Republican  or  Toleration  party,  now  the 
Democratic  party,  proved  not  to  be  the  monster  which  many 
had  supposed.  Having  obtained  office,  power,  and  plunder, 
the  latter  not  large,  its  savage  instincts  were  mollified,  and  its 
patriotic  impulses  quickened.  However,  it  was  necessary  to  do 
something  to  redeem  its  promises  of  reform ;  and  fortunately 
for  its  continued  ascendency  there  was  yet  something  to  be 


110        EAKLY  GOVERNMENT  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

done.  It  began  work  immediately.  At  tlie  first  session  of  tlie 
General  Assembly  after  its  accession  to  power,  in  May,  1817 
(Oliver  Wolcott,  a  disaffected  Federalist,  governor),  the  melior- 
ated bnt  unsatisfactory  law  of  1791,  purporting  to  "  secure  equal 
rights  and  privileges,"  was  repealed,  and  a  more  liberal  and 
explicit  one  enacted.  The  latter  declared  that  any  person  of 
any  Christian  denomination  had  full  liberty  to  join  himself  to 
any  other  denomination,  while  to  every  society  of  Christians 
was  given  the  power  to  tax  its  own  members — its  own  members 
only.  The  privileges  conferred  on  individuals  by  this  Act 
were  not  dependent,  as  those  of  the  previous  and  all  similar 
acts  were,  on  the  church-going  habits  of  the  recipients. 

Up  to  this  time,  and  till  tlie  Constitution  was  adopted  in  1818, 
there  was  one  law,  fundamental  in  the  ecclesiastical  system  of 
legislation,  which  had  always  been  denounced  as  nnjust  and 
oppressive  by  dissenting  sects — always  till  they  were  allowed 
to  share  its  benefits,  and  not  afterward — which  had  not  been 
disturbed.  It  had  its  origin  in  an  order  passed  in  October,  1644, 
and  appeared  at  length  in  the  Code  of  1650.  I  have  already 
given  it.  It  declared  that  every  inhabitant  should  contribute 
to  all  charges  both  in  chnrch  and  commonwealth,  and  if  need- 
ful be  compelled  thereto  by  assessment  and  distress.  It  is  found 
in  the  Revision  of  1808,  and  aj^pears  to  have  l)een  in  force  till 
the  Constitution  knocked  away  its  foundation.  Of  course  it  was 
not  included  in  the  Revision  of  1821.  A  remnant  of  the  belief 
that  the  State  should  contribute  of  its  revenues  to  the  support 
of  religion  and  religious  institutions  is  still  visible  in  the  man- 
agement of  our  public  schools,  and  in  the  votes  of  the  freemen 
when  an  appeal  is  taken.  The  facts  prove  tliat  the  principle 
which  at  first  determined  the  union  of  State  and  Church  has  not 
yet  been  given  up.  Nor  will  it  be,  probably,  so  long  as  sects 
can  agree  as  to  the  forms  to  be  observed. 

To  make  fast  the  advantages  in  favor  of  religious  rights 
which  had  been  secured,  and  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  evils 
which  had  been  with  difficulty  uprooted,  a  constitutional  con- 
vention was  called.  It  met  in  August,  1818,  and  framed  our 
present  Constitution.      This  was  ratified  by  the  freemen   in 


EARLY   GOVERNMENT   OF   CONNECTICUT.  Ill 

October,  and  took  the  place  of  King  Charles'  Charter  as  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  State.  Its  more  distinctive  character- 
istic is  the  Bill  of  Eights,  limiting  the  power  of  the  General 
Assembly.  The  third  section  declares  that  *'  The  exercise  and 
enjoyment  of  religious  profession  and  worship,  without  discrim- 
ination, shall  forever  be  free  to  all  persons  in  this  State ;  pro- 
vided that  the  right  hereby  declared  and  established  sliall  not 
be  so  construed  as  to  excuse  acts  of  licentiousness,  or  to  justify 
practices  inconsistent  with  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  State." 
The  fourth  section  reads  thus :  "  No  preference  shall  be  given  by 
law  to  any  (christian  sect  or  mode  of  worship.'"  In  the  body  of 
the  Constitution,  Article  Y,  is  found  the  following :  "  No  person 
shall  by  law  be  com])elled  to  join  or  suj)port,  nor  be  classed 
with,  or  associated  to,  any  congregation,  church,  or  religious 
association."  "And  each  and  every  society  or  denomination  of 
Christians  in  this  State  shall  have  and  enjoy  the  same  and  equal 
powers,  rights,  and  privileges ;"  and  shall  have  power  to  main- 
tain "  the  ministers  of  their  respective  denominations,  and  to 
build  and  repair  houses  for  public  worship,  by  a  tax  on  the 
members  of  any  such  society  only,  to  be  laid  by  a  major  vote." 
Provided  good  morals  and  the  public  peace  are  preserved, 
there  seems  now  to  be  no  constitutional  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
setting  up  any  kind  of  religious  worship  in  Connecticut,  Chris- 
tian or  Pagan  ;  l)ut  only  Christian  denominations  are  authorized 
to  tax  their  own  (voluntary)  members  for  the  support  of  minis- 
ters and  churches.  At  first  Jewish  societies  had  no  such 
authority,  but  more  recently  the  Assembly  has  invested  them 
with  the  same  rights  and  privileges  as  were  given  to  Christian 
denominations.  As  the  Assembly  may  do  any  thing  not  dis- 
tinctly forbidden  by  the  Constitution,  it  must  have  been  qualified 
to  grant  this  indulgence.  It  would  be  lawful,  I  suppose,  to  en- 
courage Mohammedanism  or  any  form  of  idolatry  in  the  same 
way,  or  to  a  much  greater  extent.  Laws  regulating  anti- 
Christian  sects  need  not  be  equal. 


'^^T  THE  LAST  DATE 


« 


Lh 


